[pro] "fhash"

[Daniel Weinreb]

Hi.   I read Christophe's paper on extensible sequences.  I don't think
this bears on my new package, though, for two reasons:

(1) it's only about sequences; maps don't fit into its framework.

(2) He is proposing here a change that would have to be made
to every Common Lisp implementation.  As may have been
apparent from other email I've sent, I am, sadly, pessimistic
that we can really get all of the implementors to make changes
in harmony.  It's not that they are bad or incompetent or
anything like that.  It's just that they're busy people with
other priorities.  In some cases, the priorities include
"putting food on the table" (in the metaphorical sense),
i.e. it would be easier if someone could pay them to
do this, but I don't see how that would happen.

Anyway, thanks for pointing me at this very interesting
paper.

-- Dan


On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Weinreb <dlw at google.com> wrote:
> > Could you tell me where to find that?  Thanks. -- Dan
>
> The paper - titled "User-extensible sequences in Common Lisp" by C.
> Rhodes - can be found for example here:
> <
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.65.1604&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> >
>
> I don't remember how well the paper describes SBCL's implementation; I
> think it's worth taking a look at it to see how it combines CLOS (for
> genericity) with regular functions special-cased on CL built-in types.
> ABCL's impl is almost a clone of SBCL's, with only minor adaptations.
>
> I agree that classes in CLOS are overrated. CLOS is mainly about
> generic functions and it's a pity, imho, that GFs can only be
> specialized on classes. With minor changes CLOS could be more general.
>
> Cheers,
> Alessio
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20110628/529981a7/attachment.html>