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

Re: Names and primitives in SRFI 56



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