Re: Last call for comments on SRFI 163: Enhanced array literals Per Bothner
10 Jan 2019 18:09 UTC
On 1/9/19 8:46 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> I just wonder whether you would like to allow u1 (bit) arrays.
Yes, that would make sense. Perhaps a minor re-phasing would be better:
The `vectag` specifies the type of the elements of the array.
An implementation that supports the literal syntax of SRFI-4 (or its proposed update SRFI 160)
should allow the `TAG` from that specification as a `vectag`. An implementation may support
other values for `vectag` as long as there is no ambiguity.