[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators |
Date: |
Sat, 23 Jan 2021 01:37:20 -0500 |
Hi Arthur,
"Arthur A. Gleckler" <srfi@speechcode.com> 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
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, John Cowan, 2021/01/21
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, Mark H Weaver, 2021/01/22
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, Shiro Kawai, 2021/01/23
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, Arthur A. Gleckler, 2021/01/23
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators,
Mark H Weaver <=
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, John Cowan, 2021/01/25
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, Linus Björnstam, 2021/01/26
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, Linus Björnstam, 2021/01/26
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen, 2021/01/26
- Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators, Linus Björnstam, 2021/01/26