[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_num2float() ?
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: scm_num2float() ? |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Sep 2001 23:59:17 +0200 (MEST) |
On 4 Sep 2001, Michael Livshin wrote:
> Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > However, this would still give 42 functions (instead of 21 if we use
> > the reduced set of conversion functions).
>
> it looks like you think that many functions is bad. I disagree:
Well, let's say that I'm in favor of a minimalistic approach. IMO, we
should make Guile as small as possible - but not smaller. I understand
that reducing the set of conversion functions to the set that I have
suggested is controversial. Whether this reduction crosses the border to
making guile 'smaller than possible' is something we have to decide. Both
solutions are possible.
> * in terms of space overhead, 21 small functions is nothing.
I have not tried it, but it I would find it interesting to know how much
'nothing' really is. And, many 'nothings' add up to infinity. However, I
agree with you about the following points:
> * maintenance overhead is nonexistent, if we generate these functions
> from macro "templates", like now.
>
> * cognitive overhead is also nonexistent -- you just say "for every
> standard C integral type foo, there are scm_num2foo_ext, scm_num2foo
> and scm_foo2num".
Best regards
Dirk Herrmann
- Re: scm_num2float() ?, (continued)
- Re: scm_num2float() ?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/09/03
- Re: scm_num2float() ?, Martin Baulig, 2001/09/03
- Re: scm_num2float() ?, Michael Livshin, 2001/09/03
- Re: scm_num2float() ?, Martin Baulig, 2001/09/04
- Re: scm_num2float() ?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/09/04
- Re: scm_num2float() ?, Michael Livshin, 2001/09/04
- Re: scm_num2float() ?,
Dirk Herrmann <=
- Re: scm_num2float() ?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/09/05