Bike shed time!
There are many different options in hash tables for weakly referenced
keys and data. When I implement these, we could multiply the various
classes of procedures for constructing hash table constructors and
types and instances by all the possible weakness options:
(MAKE-x-HASH-TABLE* weakness #!OPTIONAL initial-size),
x \in {EQ, EQV, EQUAL, STRING}
I wonder whether it makes sense to make X a parameter, too. That
wouldn't prevent special treatment of EQ.
The other obvious possibility is to make a hash table constructor
maker, i.e. to curry the
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:20:06 -0700
From: Arthur A. Gleckler a...@speechcode.com
(MAKE-x-HASH-TABLE* weakness #!OPTIONAL initial-size),
x \in {EQ, EQV, EQUAL, STRING}
I wonder whether it makes sense to make X a parameter, too. That
wouldn't prevent special treatment of
In cases like these I prefer a small number of very general
definitions, so I'd favor having all the options be defined as
arguments. Provided, of course, that there are compatibility bindings
for existing usage.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Taylor R Campbell campb...@mumble.net wrote:
