[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] functions for hash tables

From: Ed Watkeys
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] functions for hash tables
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:15:46 -0500

On Jan 26, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Larry White wrote:

A third ideal to aspire to is ease of porting between scheme
implementations.  I would like to be able to develop with MzScheme and
have the option of deploying with chicken.

I too would like to live in a world where switching Scheme implementations didn't require tedious string replacements and argument re-ordering, however I believe that there may be a simpler approach to achieving it than risking sacrificing the principle of internal consistency.

When I started working programming in Scheme, I was amazed to find that there weren't any standard procedures that returned the implementation name and version. With such a mechanism, it would be much easier to re-define procedures to ensure that your MzScheme code will execute in Chicken.

 ((eq? (scheme-implementation) 'mzscheme)) ; do nothing
 ((eq? (scheme-implementation) 'chicken)
  (define hash-table-put hash-table-set)
  ; and whatever else...

Providing a framework for this sort of porting solution is do-able, while making Chicken compatible with many mutually-incompatible Schemes is difficult if not impossible.

I think conversations like these lead to the realization that at some level, the Common Lisp folks are right, and some sort of standard library definition is called for.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]