On 07/07/2012 10:28 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Neil Toronto <neil.toro...@gmail.com> wrote:
It runs directly counter to what I expect from immutable containers, which I
use most of the time:
This is the problem. Immutable containers are very different from
mutable ones, and your expectations shouldn't be expected to carry
over. Mutability is a communications channel, not just a data storage
mechanism, and you should expect it to be different.
Yes, I'm seeing that now. A lot. :D
(I apologize for my recent negative tone. I've made up for it by
submitting bug reports for you. Or something.)
I keep trying to come up with better rules for generalizing the
containee types in mutable containers. I haven't found any that don't
have problems, so I'll have to be content with your choices on this.
Neil ⊥
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
