On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:04:15AM -0800, bear wrote:
> It argues for the implementation of those operations *EVEN ON
> DICTIONARIES WHERE THEY'RE NOT PARTICULARLY EFFICIENT*.  That
> was, in fact, my whole point.  Only if the operations exist on
> all dictionaries will they be used in "generic" code.  Only if
> they are used in "generic" code will the benefits, where available,
> be realized in general systems.

I see your point entirely.  My main argument is against operations that
don't make any sense for some collections.  For ones which do generalize
but are implementable in terms of the more basic operations, there is
little point *except* efficiency.  In that case, the operators should be
defined over a superset of collections where they're both defined and
can be implemented more efficiently.  For the general classes of SRFI,
neither point holds.

	Scott