Peter Bex scripsit: > That's rather odd, considering there were quite a few people discussing > it, judging by the SRFI discussion archive (not as much as some other > SRFIs, but still a few). It's also a very useful thing to have. > I guess that's just a Chickeneer's way of looking at it :)
Chicken didn't have a pre-existing hash table implementation to support. As I've said before, most applications don't need to be portable across multiple Schemes, since almost all are highly portable themselves. So if you are writing in MIT Scheme or Racket, you can use the hash tables provided by MIT Scheme or Racket without a problem. It's library authors who benefit most from standardization. > Why is it not drop-in? Maybe I'm missing something, but from a quick > glance the implementation doesn't really look too different from > Chicken's implementation, conceptually. For one thing, the identity hash function is the same as the main hash function, which only works on standard R5RS types. There may be other issues. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan There was an old man Said with a laugh, "I From Peru, whose lim'ricks all Cut them in half, the pay is Look'd like haiku. He Much better for two." --Emmet O'Brien _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
