At Wed, 9 May 2012 18:13:55 -0400,
Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> Ideally, we would provide similar interfaces for the other generic APIs
> in the tree, such as streams and sequences. However, the existing APIs
> rely on different representations for method tables from the one used by
> unstable/generics,
On 2012-05-09 18:02:04 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> See the 'supers' argument to 'make-struct-type-property'.
>
> Create 'real-prop:sequence' that takes a vector (compatible with
> generics library).
>
> Define 'prop:sequence' as a backwards compatibility property that
> takes an old-style implem
On 2012-05-09 19:01:10 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> When you say "dictionaries, sequences,", are you including the
> Racket types hash, vector, and list?
Yes, the changes we made to racket/dict will work with hashes, vectors,
and a-lists in the same way it did before. The only difference is when
On 05/09/2012 04:13 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
Hi all,
Racket currently provides several generic extensible data structure APIs
such as dictionaries, sequences, streams, and so on. Unfortunately, each
data structure currently has its own extension API, but no consistent
convention exists: some AP
Asumu Takikawa wrote at 05/09/2012 06:13 PM:
Any thoughts or suggestions?
When you say "dictionaries, sequences,", are you including the Racket
types hash, vector, and list?
If so, would current performance for those Racket types be affected?
And does this have implications for what op
Hi all,
Racket currently provides several generic extensible data structure APIs
such as dictionaries, sequences, streams, and so on. Unfortunately, each
data structure currently has its own extension API, but no consistent
convention exists: some APIs use lists of methods, some use vectors,
etc.
6 matches
Mail list logo
