[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Uniform vectors: was Questions about floating numbers

From: Martin Grabmueller
Subject: Re: Uniform vectors: was Questions about floating numbers
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 21:21:09 +0200 (MEST)

> From: Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:18:28 +0200 (MEST)
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Keith Wright wrote:
> > That would be srfi-4, but note also its anti-srfi, srfi-10, which
> > proposes a more general syntax.  I find srfi-4 to be unpleasantly
> > full of special cases while missing e.g. bit vectors.  Why should
> > there be a special TAGvector-ref for each type of vector, instead
> > of just letting vector-ref, or at worst uniform-vector-ref, check
> > the type of its argument?  Anti-virtualization!
> True.  But, instead of providing our own set of uniform vector syntaxes
> again - and running into compatibility problems later - it is wise to see
> which #<letter> combinations are already taken.
> And, given srfi-10, there is no need for a new syntax for uniform vectors
> at all.

I don't know if you have noticed, but CVS Guile has srfi-4 as well as
srfi-10 for quite a while now.  Try it out, comment on it and maybe we
can simply throw out the old uniform vector syntax...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]