Re: Use core or SRFIs?

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Compile it yourself!  Just look at the logic in srfi-151.sld and see how it
needs to be modified for Guile.  Easy-peasy.

It's a lot less work to port a SRFI implementation than to do things from
scratch.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 2:26 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl <
zelphirkaltstahl@posteo.de> wrote:

> Ah, but SRFI 151 is not implemented in my version of Guile:
>
> ~~~~~
> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-151))
> While compiling expression:
> no code for module (srfi srfi-151)
> scheme@(guile-user)>
> ~~~~~
>
> Guile version: 2.2.6 from Guix:
>
> ~~~~~
> guile (GNU Guile) 2.2.6
> Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> License LGPLv3+: GNU LGPL 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html>
> <http://gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html>.
> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
> ~~~~~
>
> Are you suggesting, that I copy the code for SRFI 151 from somewhere and
> put it into my project?
>
> Regards,
>
> Zelphir
> On 10/24/19 7:02 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>
> For bitwise integers, I recommend SRFI 151.  If you use your
> implementation to provide the seven core functions bitwise-not,
> bitwise-and, bitwise-ior, bitwise-xor, arithmetic-shift, integer-length,
> and bit-count, all of which have definitions in bitwise-core.scm that are
> very slow, then you'll have a package that can do pretty much what all the
> bitwise SRFIs provide and more with acceptable performance.
>
> There is a conversion table at the end of the SRFI between the names used
> by other SRFIs and the names used by SRFI 151; they are as close to SRFI 33
> and SRFI 60 as practical.  It is part of the Tangerine Edition of
> R7RS-large.
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:43 PM Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I prefer srfi. But sometimes I mix with RnRS.
>> I think it's better to avoid Guile specific things, however, Guile
>> provides
>> many good things that the standard doesn't have.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:56 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl <
>> zelphirkaltstahl@posteo.de> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Guile Users!
>> >
>> > I have a question regarding usage of SRFIs in Guile code.
>> >
>> > Sometimes there are core functions, which are also available from an
>> > SRFI implementation. One example I am currently dealing with are bitwise
>> > operations for integer numbers. There is SRFI 60 and there are the core
>> > functions like logand, logior and so on.
>> >
>> > Usually I tend to think, that using the SRFI implementation in such
>> > situation is better, as it is an implementation of a common interface,
>> > which other Schemes might also have implemented. Using that makes code
>> > more portable to other Schemes. However, I want to be sure, that this is
>> > a good way of thinking about it. Are there ever arguments against using
>> > an SRFI implementation, when an SRFI implementation provides what I
>> need?
>> >
>> > Another example are structs. I usually use SRFI 9 to make some structs,
>> > instead of the core record or struct type.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Zelphir
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>