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)
|
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote: >> No, it's a flaw in the design. You distinguish lists from alists >> according to content. You'll have isomorphism problems whenever the >> content of a list happens to match the structure of an alist. The only >> way to avoid that is to eliminate support for primitive alists -- which >> means eliminating support for one of the most common Scheme collections. xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote: > No we don't. Taylor can attest to that. That was a bug in the > implementation at the time, it wasn't a problem previous to that > version, and isn't a problem now. How do the generic procedures know whether '((a . 1) (b . 2)) is a list or an alist? If it's based on content, you have isomorphism issues to resolve. If you're now using something like a record type for alists, then you're not really handling primitive alists. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd