This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 99 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 99 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Derick Eddington wrote:
Why are vectors and not lists used for make-rtd's and rtd-constructor's fieldspecs arguments and for rtd-field-names's and rtd-all-field-names's return values? Is the only reason to follow R6RS's use of vectors? If so, I request lists be used instead because they're easier to deal with, as shown by how much list<->vector conversion is done in the ERR5RS reference implementation itself. Using lists instead would increase the appeal of this SRFI to me, and I think to others also. IMO, interoperating with the R6RS records procedures that deal in vectors without having to convert list<->vector is not a good enough reason compared to the benefit of using lists with one's primary record system of use, because interoperating at the procedural level where these vectors matter will be rare (I imagine). Or is there a good reason to use vectors?
Well, of course performance-wise vectors are much more efficient than lists as a general rule, but it mostly matters for either freequently- accessed or long-term-retention sequences. Clearly, the internal data structures used to represent classes should be vectors. In that case, it can be more efficient to have reflective operations also return (immutable) vectors - at least if return sequences can be the same as the internal sequences. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/