Opened 7 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#36 closed defect (wontfix)


Reported by: alexshinn Owned by: alexshinn
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: WG1 - Libraries Keywords:


R6RS and SRFI-69 both provide hash-table interfaces.
Do we provide either of these, or try to provide
some primitives on which efficient hash-tables can
be implemented?

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by cowan

SRFI 69 is supported (according to the documentation) by PLT, MIT, Chicken, Guile, Kawa, SISC, Chibi, SCM, IronScheme?, Larceny, STklos, SigScheme?. The median value for the number of Schemes supporting a SRFI is 7 (out of my table of 30 Schemes and 76 SRFIs at ), so this is better supported than most SRFIs, but nothing like SRFI 9 (25 Schemes) or SRFI 6 (24 Schemes).

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by cowan

I am against providing hash tables in WG1 Scheme. If they are provided, people will tend to use them by default, whereas in typical Schemes they are only efficient when you have more than 50 keys. Below that, a-lists work fine and are better integrated into the rest of Scheme.

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by kumoyuki

I would also oppose, and for much the same reasons as comment #2.

hash-table engineering is an art, and the unwary use them very poorly.

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by cowan

The WG voted to place hash tables in a module, but did not specify what it should contain.

comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by cowan

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

WG1 voted not to provide hash tables.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.