Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!vis.UUCP!greg
From: greg@vis.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Scheme is unnecessarily biased towards lists
Message-ID: <9009200822.AA02949@vis.>
Date: 20 Sep 90 08:22:19 GMT
Sender: root@athena.mit.edu (Wizard A. Root)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 35

I agree that ``its better to have 90 functions operating on one data
structure than 90 functions operating on 90 data structures'', and
lists are a great data structure, but its even better to have 90
functions able to operate interchangeably with a variety of related
data structures.  For example, Scheme's generic arithmetic operators
work with several numeric types.  This is much better than
implementing only one overly-general numeric type, e.g. rationals.
Unfortunately, Scheme does not have generic sequence operators.  I
don't think it should add them, though; rather, it should replace the
generic arithmetic operators with type-specific ones and provide a
generic dispatch mechanism (e.g., OO messaging system) to solve the
general problem.  BTW, has anyone else find that Scheme's generic
operators actually make adding new numeric types more difficult?

Someone commented recently that some particular language wasn't really
Scheme (or maybe not LISP) because it used vectors for forms.  I've
always wondered why vectors are not on a more equal footing with
lists.  It seems like pure prejudice to me.  Why is (+ 2 2) O.K. but
#(+ 2 2) is not?  

When can we start commenting on the IEEE Scheme draft and where should
we send our comments?  Can we submit such comments with EMAIL?  Same
questions for the ISO efforts.

Forever scheme'ing,

_Greg


J. Greg Davidson			  Virtual Infinity Systems
+1 (619) 452-8059        6231 Branting St; San Diego, CA 92122 USA
 
greg@vis.com				ucbvax--| telesoft--|
vis!greg@nosc.mil			decvax--+---ucsd----+--vis
vis!greg@ucsd.edu		 	 ihnp4--|   nosc----|