[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fixnumXXX and fxXXX names, and other things
| 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?