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

Re: Reviving SRFI-33

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 33 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 33 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Paulo Jorge de Oliveira Cantante de Matos wrote:

>I've been waiting for someone to revive srfi33, however it seems no one
>has enough time for it. I don't have much either but I think I can spend
>my free time (not much... ;)) working on reviving this.
>I would like to know if Olin doesn't mind about reviving this srfi since
>he is the original author. And I would like to ask the editors what need
>to be done to officially revive the srfi.

I think that numbers and strings of bits are sufficiently different
ideas, and that the differences between them are sufficiently important,
that I'd support the idea of bitstrings as a separate disjoint type,
with its own read syntax and everything.  So I'd go for something like

(bitwise-and \1001 \0110) => \1111

Alternatively, you could regard bitstrings as a kind of vector and
read/write them using vector syntax.  In that case you'd have

(bitwise-and #(1 0 0 1) #(0 1 1 0) )   => #(1 1 1 1)

which is how common lisp does it.  But Common Lisp has typed-vector
infrastructure we don't.

And suddenly, typed vectors bring us back to the current SRFI-47.
Should au1 be added to the set of vector types for SRFI-47, with
bitwise-operations and bitstring<->integer conversions defined on
bit arrays in a following SRFI?