On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 09:03:29PM -0700, bear wrote:
> As for [my dictionary interface] having "too many functions," you know
> how it got that way?  It got that way when I used the tree and alist
> and hash-table libraries I had already built to construct real working
> projects .... This is for convenience of actual use according to the
> patterns of use that were developing in real projects.  This is how
> libraries that are easy and convenient to use get built.

That's exactly why I think it would be better to implement the concrete
collection types first, use them in actual code, and then factor out the
resulting interfaces for a "naming standards" SRFI. (Assuming that such
a proposal is appropriate for a SRFI at all; it may not be.)

> I don't think your design adequately covers the real-world gaps and
> problems that people using this stuff are going to run into.

That's my feeling too. Thanks for saying it with much less hostility
than I could manage, though!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd