On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM -0700, bear wrote:

>> SRFI-44 is, plainly and simply, a Bad Idea.

> However, it seems to me that the SRFI way of disagreeing is to write a
> new SRFI to replace the former one.  Would you consider doing that?
> (And would it have any content besides "don't"?)

Hmmmm.  Actually, yes I would consider doing that, and yes it
would have content beyond "don't."

A proper collections SRFI would provide a place to hang every
operation that could be implemented more efficiently on some
collection types, thus preventing abjectly stupid formulations
of those operations out of "universal primitives" that might
be horribly inefficient on a given collection.

It would also provide a simple, portable way to register a new
user-written collection with the interface so that "generic"
functions could thereafter be used with it.

				Bear