Re: SRFI-151 (Bitwise Operations) Implementation

[Linus Björnstam]

Hey again!

I just re-read my message and noticed it could come off as somewhat dismissive. 
Ah, the joys of not having English as a first language while being a tired 
father :)

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 
practical implications of not doing so, but I read in another thread of 
potential cross-module Inlining, and helping that optimization in every way you 
can would be a great thing for low level stuff like bit fiddling :)

If you want you can just copy it from my module declaration. You can have it, 
no attribution required. Or you could just do the renaming in the #:re-export 
clause. 



-- 
  Linus Björnstam

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, at 13:52, Frank Terbeck wrote:
> Linus Björnstam wrote:
> > Your bitwise-nand etc takes more arguments than they have to. They are
> > 2-argument procedures according to the spec, which gives you better 
> > performance
> > than the apply-dance you are doing now. Maybe have a bitwise-nand and a
> > bitwise-nand*?
> 
> Yeah, I did that on purpose. The performance argument is probably valid,
> though. However,  I don't want  to extend the API.  Maybe I'll put  in a
> case-lambda there.
> 
> Thanks for taking a look!
> 
> 
> Regards, Frank
> -- 
> 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
>