Re: [scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-209] Implementation: New representation of enum-sets, misc. updates (#6) Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 24 Nov 2020 00:36 UTC
On 2020-11-20 12:04 +0100, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > May I recommend adding a note to the SRFI document saying that for the > purpose of efficiency and early error detection it is recommended to > work with enum-sets instead of individual enums wherever it is > possible and to use the syntactic form defined by define-enum to > construct enum-sets instead of the procedural interface when possible? > > [snip] > > ... are not in an enumeration set. On the other hand, operations with > enumeration sets are pretty fast as they just have to work on strings > of bits. They *may* be pretty fast. Nothing in the SRFI requires the bitmap representation, so using enum-sets rather than individual enums doesn't necessarily get you anything. Unless John wants to specify the complexity requirements of enum sets in more details, I don't think such a recommendation should be added. In addition, presenting enum objects then saying "don't use them, use singleton enum-sets" would really suggest there's something wrong with the SRFI, the sample implementation, or both. I have similar objections with regard to define-enum's supposed "early error detection". This doesn't make sense unless the macro is actually required to raise errors at expansion-time, which it currently isn't. -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "Prolonged contact with the computer turns mathematicians into clerks and vice-versa." --Alan J. Perlis