A faster implementation of stream-constant
Chris Jester-Young
(31 Oct 2015 00:47 UTC)
|
Re: A faster implementation of stream-constant
Chris Jester-Young
(31 Oct 2015 01:16 UTC)
|
Re: A faster implementation of stream-constant
Arthur A. Gleckler
(02 Nov 2015 18:51 UTC)
|
Re: A faster implementation of stream-constant John Cowan (04 Nov 2015 06:10 UTC)
|
Re: A faster implementation of stream-constant
Phil Bewig
(04 Nov 2015 16:06 UTC)
|
Re: A faster implementation of stream-constant
Arthur A. Gleckler
(04 Nov 2015 17:19 UTC)
|
Re: A faster implementation of stream-constant John Cowan 04 Nov 2015 06:10 UTC
Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit: > (The reference > implementation was included in the text of the SRFI, which was finalized > years ago, and this change isn't a fix for an error, so I decided not to > modify the reference implementation, even in the repo. This link, though, > should help implementers find this improvement.) IMO this unduly favors form over substance. You'd apply a fix to a performance bug in a sample implementation that was in a separate file. (At least I hope you would, because I intend to fix correctness and major performance bugs in the sample implementations of my SRFIs and hope you'll apply the changes I send you.) The fact that the implementation is physically incorporated in the document also containing the specification doesn't make it part of the specification. In short, the bug should be fixed directly in the code with a notice that this has been done and by whom. If Phil is agreeable (and I gather he is), I think that would be best overall. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org Wer es in kleinen Dingen mit der Wahrheit nicht ernst nimmt, dem kann man auch in grossen Dingen nicht vertrauen. --Albert Einstein on honesty