On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM, John Boyle <johnthescavenger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alex Shinn writes:
>> It is not unreasonable to work with a single data
>> structure that large, and we should ensure it's possible
>> to write it out.
>
> True.  Still, this can in theory be done with all desired space-efficiency
> and portability (given that all data structures used are portable) by the
> user: write "write/fast" recursively in Scheme.

Let's stop using names like "write/fast" or "write/small"
which refer to the implementation.  The current draft uses
"write-simple" to refer to _what_ you're writing - a simple data
structure with no cycles.  This discourages people from using
it simply because they think it will be faster.

Now, your "solution" just boils down to "they can implement it
themselves" which is a non-solution.  Programmers should be
able to write out any list they can fit in memory, and this should
be provided by the language.

--
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports