On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:

> What I haven't been adequately addressing is the neglection of SRFI 44.
> This is mainly because I have no motivation for criticising an
> already-finalised SRFI; I was hoping I could just go ahead and work this
> SRFI to be good, unhindered by SRFI 44.  It's possible that some other
> people feel the same way, I don't know.

SRFI-44 is, plainly and simply, a Bad Idea.  Abstraction over
collection types invites the misuse, or grossly inefficient
use, of those collection types by inviting people to consider
them interchangeable when, in effective use, they are not.  To
collection and SRFI authors, I recommend not complying with it;
to implementors, I recommend never implementing it.

I could go on about other reasons why SRFI-44 is a Bad Idea;
but why?

				Bear