Re: relationship to SRFI-25

relationship to SRFI-25 Per Bothner (30 Jul 2015 05:30 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 John Cowan (30 Jul 2015 20:20 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Bradley Lucier (31 Jul 2015 21:00 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Bradley Lucier (26 Sep 2015 18:33 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Per Bothner (27 Sep 2015 05:34 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Bradley Lucier (28 Sep 2015 21:04 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Per Bothner (28 Sep 2015 21:29 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Bradley Lucier (28 Sep 2015 21:54 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Jamison Hope (28 Sep 2015 22:22 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Bradley Lucier (28 Sep 2015 22:38 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Jamison Hope (28 Sep 2015 23:20 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Bradley Lucier (29 Sep 2015 06:03 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Jamison Hope (29 Sep 2015 16:12 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Bradley Lucier (30 Sep 2015 03:42 UTC)

Re: relationship to SRFI-25 Per Bothner 27 Sep 2015 05:33 UTC

On 09/26/2015 11:33 AM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> Per:
>
> You questioned the relationship between SRFI-25 and SRFI-122, implying that it was obscure.
>
> Should there be more commentary in SRFI-122 about the differences and similarities?

I think so.

 From a quick glance, I don't see any direct conflicts.  It should be possible
to implement SRFI-25 arrays using specialized-array.  Or have both be implemented
using lower-level primitives, which I would probably do for Kawa.

I think this has been mentioned before: the name specialized-array-share!
should not end in a '!'.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/