From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 01:37:20 -0500 Message-ID: <87lfckf9ac.fsf@netris.org> References: <87r1mcfozv.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39237"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: srfi , John Cowan , guile-devel@gnu.org To: "Arthur A. Gleckler" , Shiro Kawai Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 23 07:39:20 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l3CZs-000A6k-L3 for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 07:39:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57178 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l3CZr-00019b-5H for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 01:39:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49118) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l3CZI-00019S-UP for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 01:38:44 -0500 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:52498) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l3CZD-00020n-Qw for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 01:38:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l3CZ9-0005Zg-4X; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 01:38:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.112.178.59; envelope-from=mhw@netris.org; helo=world.peace.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:20647 Archived-At: Hi Arthur, "Arthur A. Gleckler" writes: > It's not a bad idea for the sample implementation to be as clear as > possible at the expense of performance. I agree that it's desirable for one of the sample implementations to be as simple and clear as possible, for the purpose of clarifying the specification. > But it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a supplemental document making > recommendations about possible performance improvements, or even a > second implementation. Sounds good. For SRFIs such as 121 and 158, where efficiency is important, I think that a second sample implementation tuned for performance would be a useful addition. Regards, Mark