---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Will Clinger <xxxxxx@github.com>
Date: Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:11 PM
Subject: [scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-128] Fixed two bugs and made hashing much faster. (#6)
To: scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-128 <srfi-128@noreply.github.com>

I haven't tested the non-R7RS code, but I believe I fixed both bugs in the non-R7RS code as well as in the R7RS code. I did not attempt to improve the speed of hashing in the non-R7RS code because R6RS-style hashtables probably won't be available in systems that can't run R6RS or R7RS code.

SRFI 114 and 128 comparators can be interoperable and interchangeable if implemented properly, but it's a bit tricky and would involve changing both reference implementations in ways that would make one of them dependent on the other. So I didn't do that in this set of changes. To see how it can be done, see Larceny's source code for these two SRFIs.

---

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-128/pull/6

Commit Summary

• Fixed two bugs and made hashing much faster.

File Changes

• M comparators/comparators-test.scm (27)
• M comparators/default.scm (4)
• M srfi/128.body2.scm (14)
• M srfi/128.sld (13)
• M tests/srfi-128-test.sps (32)

Patch Links:

• https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-128/pull/6.patch
• https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-128/pull/6.diff

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub