This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 56 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 56 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
At Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:34:44 -0700 (PDT), campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > But what I'd really rather see is not the use of the symbols BIG-ENDIAN > versus LITTLE-ENDIAN but instead unique tokens for endianness. There > would be (HIGH-ORDER-ENDIAN) & (LOW-ORDER-ENDIAN), or (BIG-ENDIAN) & > (LITTLE-ENDIAN), procedures that would return tokens denoting the > endianness to use. The exact representation of the tokens is left > unspecified. This permits, for instance, them to be small fixnums, on > which computed gotos can be performed in the READ-... procedures for > even better speed than symbol comparison & branching. It also permits > other, more sophisticated representations, such as some structure > containing the actual reader function for maximal extensibility. I see your point, but is there any particular reason to make these procedures rather than constants (such as the constants in SRFI-19)? Presumably the value won't change. -- Alex