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

Re: fixnumXXX and fxXXX names, and other things

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

 | From: William D Clinger <will@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 | Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:47:19 -0400
 | arcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
 | > These points seem to be contradictory:
 | ...
 | > Can we expect a portable and reasonably efficient implementation
 | > of this SRFI to be written as the reference implementation?
 | Yes.  I'm working on it.
 | A relatively small subset of the fixnum and flonum procedures
 | will be identified as the basic primitives.  If implementors
 | implement those primitives efficiently, they will be rewarded
 | with a reasonably efficient implementation of the full SRFI.
 | The reference implementation won't make multiple values any
 | faster, but it should provide multiple implementations of the
 | procedures that would most naturally use them, so systems in
 | which multiple values are fast can benefit from using them
 | and systems in which multiple values are slow can eschew them.

If the system eschews them, what are the bounds of the system; are
libraries part of the system?  Is it incumbent on platform-neutral
libraries to have multiple-value and non-multiple-value alternates?
What mechanism is there for library code to discover whether the
implementation running it has fast multiple-values?