[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The problem with SRFI's is that they still won't provide you with a
> standard way of requesting facilities, e.g. - things like (require)
> which is different from the DrScheme equivalent.
True, though my guess is that that'll be the subject of a future SRFI.
For now you can just put all that stuff in separate "preload" files,
one per implementation that you care about. Ugly, but functional.
> Agreed; hashing is another thing that almost always has a slightly
> different expression in each different implementation.
Right, but if you pick (or create) a suitably abstract interface, you
can implement it in terms of the other language's primitives if you
need to migrate. Things like object systems could be a much bigger
undertaking (though implementing most object systems' semantics in
scheme, as SICP points out, isn't really that big a deal if you're not
a huge syntax nut.
> In the case of a struct, n isn't likely more than 10 or so, the
> complexity is essentially "O(10)," which is probably effectively
> only a little slower than hashing.
Agreed. I didn't know exactly what you were using them for.
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
----- %< -------------------------------------------- >% ------
The GnuCash / X-Accountant Mailing List
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
put "unsubscribe gnucash-devel [EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the body
