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

Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 66 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 66 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:

> Do you mean that the endianness parameter defaults to the
> machine-native endianness?  That'd be a sure-fire recipe for
> portability hell.  Cf. how many times people forget htonl(3).

I based that design on SRFI 56 (binary I/O).  I don't think it would be
as much of an issue in Scheme as in C, though, as there is in general
less low-level clutter to distract one with in Scheme compared to C.
However, it's not a fundamental facet of my alternative binary vector
suggestion; the endianness parameter could be required just as well.

(If you do think that the endianness parameter being optional would
cause significant problems easily, you should mention it on the SRFI 56
list as well.)