SRFI 130: 120 days
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Apr 2016 19:25 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 130: 120 days
John Cowan
(01 Apr 2016 20:40 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 130: 120 days Alex Shinn (02 Apr 2016 14:32 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 130: 120 days
John Cowan
(02 Apr 2016 16:29 UTC)
|
index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
Per Bothner
(03 Apr 2016 19:16 UTC)
|
Re: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
John Cowan
(03 Apr 2016 19:40 UTC)
|
Re: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
Alex Shinn
(04 Apr 2016 01:18 UTC)
|
Re: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
Per Bothner
(04 Apr 2016 02:56 UTC)
|
Re: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
Alex Shinn
(04 Apr 2016 05:39 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 130: 120 days Alex Shinn 02 Apr 2016 09:20 UTC
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 5:39 AM, John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit: > >> John, how's the implementation coming? Do you think we'll >> be ready for last call soon? > > I haven't started, but there is little to do. Basically I need to > take Olin's implementation, remove any unneeded procedures, add the > trivial string-cursor-* and string->vector/cursors procedures, and write > string-split. That will produce an implementation in which cursors and > indexes are the same, which satisfies the requirements of the SRFI. Given the nature of the SRFI I don't think an implementation without disjoint cursors is sufficient. I'll write one for Chibi. I'm slightly concerned about the feasibility of implementing this efficiently in other implementations. In Chicken with the utf8 egg at least it would require heap allocation which could make some string algorithms measurably slower. I'd also like to hear from implementors of other utf8/utf16 Schemes (gauche, kawa, etc.). [I like the new draft very much, btw, I just haven't had time to review in detail yet]. -- Alex