[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?