Pascal Costanza <pc@p-cos.net> writes:
The specification of generic hash tables misses a specification of the package in which the functionality is to be found.
Not in the version I'm looking at: section 1.2.1 (on the first page) is clear that the name is GENHASH, no?
On a more general note: Do we need a more general mechanism for assigning package names? One potential problem I see coming up is that each CDR uses its own package name, which could lead to a proliferation of package names which in turn is also quite inconvenient.
Please, no. If there is demand from users to aggregate implementations of CDRs into one package, then they can either define themselves or lobby their vendors to aggregate symbols from disparate packages into a single package.
Any ideas?
I don't see why a proliferation of package names is inconvenient; even if it is, I don't see an already-accepted solution in the community out there. (If you know of one, maybe you should write it up as a CDR... :-) Cheers, Christophe