From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Frank Terbeck Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: SRFI-151 (Bitwise Operations) Implementation Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:15:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87d0br3na9.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> References: <87y2uh2qyu.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <87r2092dxa.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <87muaw3i7z.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <581d4068-203f-426a-95ef-2595561c63b0@www.fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="76961"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: Linus =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rnstam?= Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 10 06:16:57 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ipme6-0016RW-4x for guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:15:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40546 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ipme4-0006XW-9o for guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:15:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54570) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ipmdr-0006X7-Bz for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:15:28 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ipmdq-0003Iz-0E for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:15:27 -0500 Original-Received: from smtprelay06.ispgateway.de ([80.67.18.29]:12863) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ipmdp-00035I-N7 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:15:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.155.206.63] (helo=jim.voodoo.lan) by smtprelay06.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1ipmdm-0007Va-1u; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:15:22 +0100 Original-Received: by jim.voodoo.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A9E22127781; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:15:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <581d4068-203f-426a-95ef-2595561c63b0@www.fastmail.com> ("Linus =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rnstam=22's?= message of "Thu, 09 Jan 2020 21:45:46 +0100") X-Df-Sender: NDMwNDQ0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 80.67.18.29 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:16024 Archived-At: Hi, Linus Bj=C3=B6rnstam wrote: > I just re-read my message and noticed it could come off as somewhat dismi= ssive. > Ah, the joys of not having English as a first language while being a tired > father :) Didn't strike me particularly as such. So, all is good. > I looked through your code. It is nicer than mine, but why did you chose = to not > just re-export bindings that are available in srfi60? I don't know the I actually didn't think about it too much. I was more focused on making the implementation match the order used in the specification and add documentation to all API so it can be followed in a straight forward manner. > practical implications of not doing so, but I read in another thread of > potential cross-module Inlining, and helping that optimization in every w= ay you > can would be a great thing for low level stuff like bit fiddling :) Sure. I must admit that I haven't really played a lot with Guile's com- piler and optimiser. I wonder what the impact would be here. Remember the subject of said thread? Regards, Frank --=20 In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -- RFC 1925