Re: Uniform vectors: was Questions about floating numbers

[Dirk Herrmann]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Martin Grabmueller wrote:

> > 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...

Sorry for not answering for so long...

However, since I am not using the old uniform vector syntax, I'd say yes,
throw it out :-)  Or, rather, first deprecate the old interface pointing
to your implementation of srfi-4.  Then, we can throw it away in guile
1.10.x.

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann