range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(01 Sep 2020 11:29 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
John Cowan
(01 Sep 2020 15:29 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(01 Sep 2020 15:45 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(01 Sep 2020 16:33 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
John Cowan
(01 Sep 2020 17:12 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(01 Sep 2020 17:27 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(01 Sep 2020 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(01 Sep 2020 17:36 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Sep 2020 17:37 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(01 Sep 2020 17:38 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(01 Sep 2020 17:46 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
John Cowan
(01 Sep 2020 18:23 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Sep 2020 18:40 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
John Cowan
(01 Sep 2020 18:42 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(01 Sep 2020 18:52 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(01 Sep 2020 19:22 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
John Cowan
(03 Sep 2020 00:15 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(03 Sep 2020 02:27 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
John Cowan
(03 Sep 2020 03:35 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Sep 2020 06:47 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(03 Sep 2020 18:04 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(03 Sep 2020 18:27 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Sep 2020 19:10 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (03 Sep 2020 20:32 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(03 Sep 2020 07:11 UTC)
|
Re: range->vector
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Sep 2020 07:14 UTC)
|
On 2020-09-03 21:09 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > As most Scheme implementations will probably just copy the sample > implementation, it is important to have, eventually, a performant one. I fully agree, although it's also important to me that the sample implementation be as simple as possible (but not simpler!). If I understand correctly, improvements to the sample implementation can come after finalization, so there is time to get this right. > I would do the following changes: > > ... > > What this proposal doesn't yet include is lazily realizing the range. > I am not yet sure how to do it best because we don't want to trigger a > cascade of realizations. Thanks, this seems quite clear. The laziness will certainly require some more thought. Adding any of this hinges on what John decides to do with the indexer complexity requirements, though. -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "I don't really know much about Python. I only stole its object system for Perl 5. I have since repented." --Larry Wall