Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > On Mon 11 Jun 2012 16:19, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > >> Are you even reading what you are replying to? > > Please be civil. People are trying to help you.
More like telling me off. Of course, I am perfectly able to implement my own moderately efficient version in Guile using already existing data structures, and this is exactly what I will be doing in this case. It is not me that needs help here but rather Guile, since the disjoint members of the set of abstract data structures chosen by Scheme don't include some combinations of features that map reasonably well both to an abstract problem space as well as to the underlying implementation. There is some sense in making use of this feature overlap in reducing the number and increasing the versatility of the underlying primitives, whether at the Scheme or the VM level. Whatever. I think we can all agree that I don't know what I am talking about and move on. Saves a lot of hassle for everybody. -- David Kastrup
