On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Scott G. Miller wrote:

>On 4/26/05, bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net> wrote:

>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Scott G. Miller wrote:
>>
>> >compatible with SRFI-44, whose purpose is to unify datastructures so
>> >that they can be used generically and consistently in programs.
>>
>> I think srfi-44 fails to do that.  It doesn't provide
>> any infrastructure with a way for collection code to
>> "register" itself so as to be usable via generic functions,
>> so there is absolutely no "pluggable interface" in a code
>> sense.
>
>Thats an implementation concern.  The "generic and consistent" refers to
>the experience of the programmer, not the implementor.

Without a usable interface and a way for collections to give
it callbacks so that they can be used through its generic
functions, there is *NO* experience for the programmer, nor
the implementor either.  srfi-44 is dead; it is so
underspecified that there is nothing that "using" it even
means.

It is of no concern at all in implementing real collection
implementations, because it provides no portable interface
and cannot be implemented as a portable library.  Nothing
that depends on it (or "uses" it, if such it may be termed)
can be portable. Therefore it is best to ignore it completely
for purposes of srfi-69, or any srfi which intends to provide
a usable (ie, portable) library.

			Bear