Re: Fundamental design flaws

Show/hide message thread

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 scgmille@xxxxxx 30 Oct 2003 17:11 UTC

Show/hide attachments

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:05:04AM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>
> Perhaps in all cases, the optional equivalence predicate to a
> constructor is mostly just a hint.
>
> If I make a hash table using EQV? but then modify it with:
>
> 	(dictionary-set! d k v)		; set using equal?
>
> instead of
>
> 	(dictionary-setv! d k v)	; set using eqv?
>

>
> then perhaps the results are simply undefined.   The non-generic
> interface to (normal) association lists works that way, for example.
> I've certainly used hash-table libraries that work that way.

But why build in so much semantic uncertainty when the utility of
changing equivalence in flight is limited to what I imagine are some
pretty unusual cases?

	Scott