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 Bradd W. Szonye 30 Oct 2003 21:54 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