Mikael Tillenius wrote:
Thomas Lord wrote:
How would you reconcile your category of "reasonable implementation"
with all of the complexity-varying, all useful approaches to
implementing
string-ref that people talk about?
Isn't this part of why strings is so controversial. Different people
want to implement them in different ways and at the same time be able
to access parts of them in a efficient way.
Yes. And, in practice, it is useful to implement them in different
ways and, at the same time, by which metrics we mean "efficient" varies
from situation to situation.
Yes, some of that language probably needs cleaned-up, with particular
attention
to the "must v. should" distinction. My gosh, if we were to get to
that point
before the end of this year, in my view, it'll probably be evidence
that R6 is
shaping up nicely.
It would make it harder to use Scheme as a way to talk about
algorithms and their efficiency if we cannot do some basic assumptions
about the underlying Scheme implementation. Of course one could always
say things like: "On a reasonable implementation this algorithm would
be O(n)".
Firm up what *you* mean by "reasonable", give that thing a more
reasonable name than "reasonable", and refer to that.
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
