Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2003 20:35 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (28 Oct 2003 21:24 UTC)
RE: Reasons for withdrawal Anton van Straaten (28 Oct 2003 22:05 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 22:36 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2003 22:44 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 23:22 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 02:50 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 03:19 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 03:31 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 03:38 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 04:36 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 05:02 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 05:32 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Taylor Campbell (28 Oct 2003 22:56 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Taylor Campbell (28 Oct 2003 23:06 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 23:16 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2003 23:28 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 23:42 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 00:13 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 01:00 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 01:41 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 03:03 UTC)
RE: Reasons for withdrawal Anton van Straaten (29 Oct 2003 05:31 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 05:54 UTC)
RE: Reasons for withdrawal Anton van Straaten (29 Oct 2003 06:40 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 06:44 UTC)
RE: Reasons for withdrawal Anton van Straaten (29 Oct 2003 07:31 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 07:34 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Thien-Thi Nguyen (29 Oct 2003 14:08 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 21:28 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2003 22:02 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (28 Oct 2003 22:22 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Jim White (28 Oct 2003 22:15 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 01:25 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 01:44 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 04:10 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 04:53 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 05:10 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 05:17 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 05:31 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 01:49 UTC)
API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 05:48 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 06:03 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 17:40 UTC)
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 06:03 UTC)
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 14:19 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 22:25 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 22:41 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Taylor Campbell (29 Oct 2003 23:58 UTC)
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) Taylor Campbell (29 Oct 2003 21:40 UTC)
A possible solution? bear (29 Oct 2003 22:59 UTC)
RE: A possible solution? Anton van Straaten (30 Oct 2003 07:40 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 10:07 UTC)
RE: A possible solution? bear (30 Oct 2003 15:13 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 15:20 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 15:27 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 15:39 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 15:43 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 16:11 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? bear (30 Oct 2003 17:02 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 19:58 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 20:15 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? bear (30 Oct 2003 20:53 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:07 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Taylor Campbell (30 Oct 2003 21:08 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:11 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:17 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? bear (30 Oct 2003 23:11 UTC)
Re: A possible solution? Alex Shinn (31 Oct 2003 03:03 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 23:19 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 00:26 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 05:32 UTC)
Re: API conflicts bear (30 Oct 2003 06:22 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 06:23 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 13:54 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 14:01 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 14:16 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 14:29 UTC)
Re: API conflicts scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 14:58 UTC)
Re: API conflicts Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 15:22 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 01:50 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Alex Shinn (29 Oct 2003 03:06 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 03:18 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 03:29 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 03:37 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Alex Shinn (29 Oct 2003 06:16 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 14:25 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Alex Shinn (30 Oct 2003 02:19 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 04:42 UTC)
Re: Reasons for withdrawal Alex Shinn (30 Oct 2003 06:22 UTC)

Re: A possible solution? scgmille@xxxxxx 30 Oct 2003 16:11 UTC
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:42:56AM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> >>> In the short term, yes, it may allow for drop in collections, but
> >>> should a real generic dispatch standard come about, it would not
> >>> only invalidate the mechanism you're describing, but the rest of
> >>> SRFI-44 as well since they would be specified in the same place.
>
> Bradd wrote:
> >> Why would it invalidate the whole thing? If a better solution becomes
> >> apparent in the future, then release a new SRFI that describes the
> >> delta from the old crusty implementation.
>
> > Why build in obsolecence?
>
> Why assume that it will become obsolete? If it does, a new SRFI can
> specify how to upgrade. In the meantime, collection library implementors
> have a portable extension mechanism that they can actually use.

Because it will.  Scheme systems right now have dispatch mechanisms.
Thats a fact.  It makes much more sense for this SRFI to integrate with
those.  But we can't do that without a portable, pervasive dispatch
system.  I suspect this will be standardized eventually, and when it
does, collections should integrate with it.  Specifying a dispatch
mechanism with this SRFI means that this SRFI has a limited lifetime
before it has to be patched or abandonned.

	Scott