t

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:

>Hello, I was on a holiday and found my SRFI added with many comments
>when I came back.  I'll try to address your various points in this mail.
>I'll post something about the more controversial ones in a separate
>mail.
>
>SRFI-44 compatibility:
>	I looked at the applicable parts of SRFI-44 (map API) and didn't
>	like it.  However, if an implementation should want to give a
>	SRFI-44 interface to SRFI-69 hash tables, it is easy enough to
>	do so.  The way of doing so is sufficiently defined in SRFI-44,
>	so I won't bother with that.

This is laughable btw; the reason it was an absurd request
in the first place is precisely because srfi-44 leaves this
very thing (how to add methods to its overloaded functions)
unspecified.  There is no such thing as a portable interface
to SRFI-44, so you were quite right to ignore the request for
one.

>-size vs. -count:
>	I associate hash-table-size with the actual size of the hash
>	table, so I thought -count would be more intuitive.  However, it
>	seems -size is more consistent with the rest of the world.  So I
>	changed it.

I think I agree with you; it's sensible to me to talk
about a hash table of size 2048, containing 999 elements.

			Bear