|
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: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days] Alex Shinn 04 Apr 2016 00:44 UTC
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> wrote: > > On 04/02/2016 09:29 AM, John Cowan wrote: >> >> Cursors need not be heap allocated if they are negative fixnums, which >> is explicitly called out as legitimate. 0 is both a cursor and an index >> under this scheme, but that's all right, because it means the same thing >> in both cases. > > I feel very uncomfortable with this approach. It seems very error-prone. > > There is a minor performance hit for testing index vs cursor, but it > probably only matters for string-ref/cursor. I think Kawa would want to use a disjoint cursor type. -- Alex