At Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:36:58 -0800 (PST), bear wrote:
>
> But if I have to wait for implementors to support something natively,
> or if I have to write unportable "glue code" to drop it into a system,
> then I will not bother -- and in fact I'd be very likely to submit a
> different SRFI that specifically obsoleted 44 by creating a portable
> interface.

If you did I'd be likely to finish up my hash-table SRFI and write the
reference implementation using that interface.

Without that I, as a potential implementor, have to take a neutral view
of SRFI-44.  If it is finalized then there would be precedent and I'd
have to have very good reasons not to fit a hash-table SRFI into it's
API.  But without any hope of writing a portable reference
implementation I might just not bother.

[As an aside, I consider think the lack of hash table consistency among
Schemes the second biggest problem after module systems.  Many Schemes
use portable versions of regexp libraries, object systems, and often use
the same API's for things such as POSIX functions, but I don't know of
*any* two Schemes who agree on hash-tables, yet they are a very
fundamental data-type and easy to implement.]

--
Alex