Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators

Show/hide message thread

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators John Cowan (21 Jan 2021 18:40 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Mark H Weaver (23 Jan 2021 00:59 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Shiro Kawai (23 Jan 2021 02:15 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Arthur A. Gleckler (23 Jan 2021 02:18 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Mark H Weaver (23 Jan 2021 06:38 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators John Cowan (26 Jan 2021 03:30 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Linus Björnstam (26 Jan 2021 07:08 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (26 Jan 2021 07:15 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Linus Björnstam (26 Jan 2021 16:03 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Arthur A. Gleckler (08 Apr 2021 15:54 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Linus Björnstam (11 Apr 2021 15:52 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Arthur A. Gleckler (11 Apr 2021 16:17 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Linus Björnstam (27 Jan 2021 15:33 UTC)

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Mark H Weaver 23 Jan 2021 06:37 UTC

Hi Arthur,

"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@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