Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 17:46 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 19:13 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 20:06 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 20:47 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 23:24 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Taylor Campbell (30 Oct 2003 01:53 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 04:42 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 16:52 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 17:11 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 16:33 UTC)
RE: Fundamental design flaws Anton van Straaten (30 Oct 2003 16:52 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 17:19 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 18:13 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:18 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:26 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:35 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:49 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:55 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 22:05 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 22:28 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 22:52 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Alex Shinn (31 Oct 2003 03:04 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (31 Oct 2003 03:20 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Alex Shinn (31 Oct 2003 07:13 UTC)
RE: Fundamental design flaws Anton van Straaten (30 Oct 2003 23:07 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (31 Oct 2003 03:12 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:57 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 20:23 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 20:35 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 17:06 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 17:26 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 18:15 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws bear (30 Oct 2003 18:48 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 19:35 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws bear (30 Oct 2003 19:45 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 20:08 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws bear (30 Oct 2003 20:40 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 20:48 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 20:49 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:02 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:26 UTC)

RE: Fundamental design flaws Anton van Straaten 30 Oct 2003 16:52 UTC

Tom Lord wrote:
> I'm saying: either don't try to operate on the Scheme types at all, or
> design 44 in such a way that the collections procedures work on (at
> least):
>
> 	ordinary lists as sequences (with any equivalence predicate)
> 	ordinary lists as sets (with any equivalence predicate)
> 	ordinary lists as ordered sequences
>           (with any equivalence /ordering predicate)
> 	ordinary associative lists as dictionaries (with any
> equivalence predicate)
>
> (and probably other things I'm forgetting.)

Some adapters which take a Scheme type and return a collection could do
this, presumably within the bounds of the current 44 spec, although I
haven't tried to prove that to myself.  Would that approach satisfy you, or
do you think that the collection procedures should be able to operate
directly on "unwrapped" Scheme types?

Anton