Re: Awaken, discussion! Alex Shinn 28 Oct 2003 03:46 UTC
Re: Awaken, discussion! Taylor Campbell 30 Oct 2003 00:43 UTC

Re: Awaken, discussion! Taylor Campbell 30 Oct 2003 00:43 UTC

On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 22:46 US/Eastern, Alex Shinn wrote:

> A couple comments.
> For vector-copy! Guile provides vector-move-left! and
> vector-move-right!, so that you can safely copy a vector onto itself
> (useful for implementing -insert/-delete).  You don't really need the
> -left!/-right! distinction, so long as you check the TSTART vs. FSTART
> (if TSTART is smaller you copy left->right, if FSTART is smaller you
> copy right->left).  So the API can remain the same but it's probably
> worth requiring in the SRFI that TARGET and VEC are allowed to be the
> same vector.

This sounds like a good idea (in fact, it's what SRFI 13 does with its
STRING-COPY!).  I shall put this in the next revision of the document
and implementation.

> For the CMP of vector-binary-search, is there a consensus on returning
> symbols?

Nope.  That was pretty arbitrary on my part.

>           You could pass a < predicate which is consistent with the
> sort
> SRFI and allows use of built-ins like string-ci<?, or use a comparator
> with a positive/negative/zero as in C which allows the use of the
> built-in - procedure.

Yes, I realized a while ago that it would be better to use positive/
zero/negative results for the comparison procedure.  I shall change
this as well.

> --
> Alex

Of course, you didn't comment on the insertion and deletion stuff like
I asked you to...that stuff is about the only reason I haven't made
the final word to finalize the SRFI.

And it occurs to me that no one mentioned anything about the /INDEX
variants of VECTOR-MAP[!] and VECTOR-FOR-EACH; the document doesn't
specify where the index argument is.  I'd prefer it to be the first
argument.  Would anyone mind if I made this change, even though it's
incompatible with the current reference implementation?  (which, of
course, I shall fix as well)