From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: propose deprecation of generalized-vector-* Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:20:32 +0100 Message-ID: <87ip6ontlr.fsf@pobox.com> References: <0F432FA1-CFF8-4A22-A477-5291A1B9925D@bluewin.ch> <87ip9mgzp4.fsf@gnu.org> <878v7m5xdh.fsf@pobox.com> <2E5FFE0D-9001-409C-BCD4-9EE3BF9883F0@bluewin.ch> <87d2wxos8b.fsf@pobox.com> <973AF25A-2756-4FCD-9EA5-3E63DAB4E167@bluewin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358932846 27742 80.91.229.3 (23 Jan 2013 09:20:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ludo@gnu.org, guile-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Llorens Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 23 10:21:03 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TxwVz-0000tX-CO for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:21:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35198 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxwVh-00012F-Ti for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:20:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45375) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxwVc-000124-SN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:20:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxwVY-0003MJ-Ou for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:20:40 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:50898 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxwVY-0003M8-Kn; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:20:36 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0683A994C; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:20:36 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=OOIPScNh9JWdG9BneDEwF/L/JMY=; b=YumYbc Kb1h6X99l6yv+OzZtDO5sNHzurNbOgn1pL5vCb7Qg22XEVmM4oUEZfMqpiyRVBT2 vj45rWRBVIUxiOIVbacAwVimQZOZjT7D5QHPK1YUHaIxW9AhtEUUB714w4C250j0 4HtDUVuKq+SuzI80IyVsovzZdH0acHNLlhFgc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=pV44MOq2X2jp2D0ErQkRG7ejtLl4e4VG UWwpmhjnIc1RD+sc01EsoRkDMSg7VJOp9X9abjvkpybAVVRQPYFioZyNCyoA5gcz OCjTp/d84TFzMi36Hn6xInF0q/zcXIsI/kHxLrNio1MkuQcX7qlmx4yc68CMoDm5 O2pA7YVf+ZM= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B42994B; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:20:35 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30500994A; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:20:35 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <973AF25A-2756-4FCD-9EA5-3E63DAB4E167@bluewin.ch> (Daniel Llorens's message of "Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:27:57 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 24BCCD1A-653E-11E2-ADAC-0A4F0E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:15557 Archived-At: Hi, On Wed 23 Jan 2013 00:27, Daniel Llorens writes: > I guess I don't value that much having a specific interface just for > rank 1 objects. I don't care much either; I don't think I have ever used the generalized vector routines. If I wanted real polymorphism, I think I would also want it over user types (GOOPS and record types) as well, and that's another kettle of fish. I'm now inclined to punt on any kind of general(ized) solution, and leave it to a module to handle. > The array interface seems more logical. Everything is array? and then > things are typed-array? of specific types. I see myself not using the > vector interface at all. Yes, the array interface is consistent, easy to explain, and completely subsumes the generalized-vector interface. Let's recommend that for now. A guile with generalized arrays (as we have always had) and without generalized vectors is better because it has the same power, fewer concepts, fewer bugs, and less code. I have pushed our patches to a new WIP branch, wip-generalized-vectors. I'd like to leave it open for comments for a week or so before merging, just in case someone hasn't had a chance to wade through all of my mails over the last week. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/