[cdr-discuss] What about CDR 3, then?

[Christophe Rhodes]

Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> writes:

> As an open ended question: how does this CDR relate to Marco
> Antoniotti's CL-Enumerations and my CL-Containers? 

I don't think this CDR relates at all to cl-enumerations or
cl-containers.

> From an implementation point of view, it sounds like you would need
> to make the various CL functions into generic functions and/or write
> a lot of code that dispatches on type within the CL functions.

CDR 3 does not discuss anything like this; in some sense I'm sorry
that I have muddied the waters in my answer to Pascal.  Just to
reiterate: CDR 3 addresses what I believe to be a specification bug
that I discovered in the course of performing related work.

That said, yes, I have performed some related work which makes various
operations generic, both in the pre-CLOS sense and in the generic
function sense; I don't think it's a lot of code, and I don't believe
that there are other negative implications.

This work will not be incompatible, as far as I can tell, with either
cl-enumerations or cl-containers; I feel I can say that because this
work should not be incompatible with any existing code.  (Without a
more directed question, I'm not sure that I can give you a clearer
answer.  If you do have a question, it might help to know that
documentation of the form "this is like X in Java", or, worse, "this
is a list of the symbols in this package", is not enough context to
give me confidence in my answers).

Cheers,

Christophe