Re: [Chicken-users] Hash table equality pitfall

[John Cowan]

Peter Bex scripsit:

> That's rather odd, considering there were quite a few people discussing
> it, judging by the SRFI discussion archive (not as much as some other
> SRFIs, but still a few).  It's also a very useful thing to have.
> I guess that's just a Chickeneer's way of looking at it :)

Chicken didn't have a pre-existing hash table implementation to support.
As I've said before, most applications don't need to be portable across
multiple Schemes, since almost all are highly portable themselves.
So if you are writing in MIT Scheme or Racket, you can use the hash
tables provided by MIT Scheme or Racket without a problem.  It's library
authors who benefit most from standardization.

> Why is it not drop-in?  Maybe I'm missing something, but from a quick
> glance the implementation doesn't really look too different from
> Chicken's implementation, conceptually.

For one thing, the identity hash function is the same as the main
hash function, which only works on standard R5RS types.
There may be other issues.

-- 
John Cowan    address@hidden    http://ccil.org/~cowan
   There was an old man                Said with a laugh, "I
     From Peru, whose lim'ricks all      Cut them in half, the pay is
       Look'd like haiku.  He              Much better for two."
                                             --Emmet O'Brien