Re: propose deprecation of generalized-vector-*

[Andy Wingo]

Hi,

On Wed 23 Jan 2013 00:27, Daniel Llorens <address@hidden> writes:

> I guess I don't value that much having a specific interface just for
> rank 1 objects.

I don't care much either; I don't think I have ever used the generalized
vector routines.  If I wanted real polymorphism, I think I would also
want it over user types (GOOPS and record types) as well, and that's
another kettle of fish.

I'm now inclined to punt on any kind of general(ized) solution, and
leave it to a module to handle.

> The array interface seems more logical. Everything is array? and then
> things are typed-array? of specific types. I see myself not using the
> vector interface at all.

Yes, the array interface is consistent, easy to explain, and completely
subsumes the generalized-vector interface.  Let's recommend that for
now.

A guile with generalized arrays (as we have always had) and without
generalized vectors is better because it has the same power, fewer
concepts, fewer bugs, and less code.

I have pushed our patches to a new WIP branch, wip-generalized-vectors.
I'd like to leave it open for comments for a week or so before merging,
just in case someone hasn't had a chance to wade through all of my mails
over the last week.

Regards,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/