Re: Last call for comments on SRFI 163: Enhanced array literals
Bradley Lucier 11 Jan 2019 00:55 UTC
On 1/10/19 1:09 PM, Per Bothner wrote:
> 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.
>
Sounds good.