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

Re: Why vectors?

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.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Derick Eddington wrote:

<lotsa snip>
If rtd-field-names can directly return an internal data structure,
that's obviously going to be the most efficient, but will it be able to
or should it do that?  Is it really a performance concern?
Implementations of rtd-all-field-names will probably use
rtd-field-names, so rtd-all-field-names' performance will be affected by
rtd-field-names, but is it really a concern?

What is an example where the efficiency of using vector field specifiers
versus list field specifiers for the API matters?

rtd-accessor and rtd-mutator take a field name symbol argument (I like
that) instead of a numeric index like R6RS does, and that seems like a
similar performance concern which might not really need to be a concern.

What could a sophisticated optimizing compiler do for these six

SRFIs have to have reference implementations.  It's better when theyre usable
and reasonably efficient than when they're not.  It's also possible to design
them in a clean, general fashion, rather than worrying about what kind of
compiler they have.  This is especially important for ERR5RS as a point
of contrast and portability.