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

Re: SRFI-10 syntax vs. #nA syntax

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 58 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 58 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
> My proposal (implemented in SCM) used SRFI-4 abbreviations.  Per
> Bothner wants FLOAT, -U, and -S for names.  Bear wants square brackets
> ... [Taylor] did a good job, moving us toward Scheme vocabulary and
> away from bastard C types.

The naming is not a big deal for me, although I would prefer something
terse and grounded in "hardware-speak" (e.g., single, double, signed,
unsigned, bit) rather than "math-speak" (e.g., real, integer, boolean),
since the goal is to specify specific "hardware" types instead of the
usual "math" types!

> As for the new prototype names, they are directly provided by the 13
> definitions in SRFI-58:
>   (define A:complex-64 ac64)
>   (define A:complex-32 ac32) ... [etc]

Earlier, I incorrectly complained about inconsistencies between SRFI 47
and SRFI 58 naming conventions, because I hadn't noticed this change
yet. Good work, and sorry if I caused confusion.

> My array procedure missive may have crossed in the emails ....
> Calls to `array' look very much like SRFI-10 read-syntax:
>   (define ident2 (array 2 A:real-32 '((1.0 0.0) (0.0 1.0))))

This procedure is a good idea, and I'm surprised that it wasn't already
in SRFI 47. Even if you have quasiquotable array literals, it's still
helpful to have an initializing constructor.
Bradd W. Szonye