On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 4:27:56 PM UTC-5, Philip McGrath wrote: > Have you considered implementing the gen:dict generic interface? > > > > -Philip > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Greg Trzeciak <gtrz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 2:18:53 PM UTC+1, Andrew Kent wrote: > > > > > ddict seeks to mimic Racket's `hash` API as much as possible and is > > hopefully a a convenient "drop in" replacement for `hash` when you'd like > > deterministic iteration order. > > > > Thank you, just when I need it! > > One minor issue regarding the API - I understand you wanted to mimic hash api > but I personally wonder if moving away from keywordless api for both hash and > ddict wouldn't be a better idea. > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Yes, the mutable and immutable ddict abstractions both implement the gen:dict interface currently. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
