VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Michael Sperber
(15 Dec 2003 17:03 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Taylor Campbell
(15 Dec 2003 22:00 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX Michael Sperber (16 Dec 2003 08:06 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Taylor Campbell
(17 Dec 2003 03:54 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Sven.Hartrumpf@xxxxxx
(17 Dec 2003 08:56 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Michael Sperber
(17 Dec 2003 18:17 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Taylor Campbell
(17 Dec 2003 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX Michael Sperber 16 Dec 2003 08:06 UTC
>>>>> "Taylor" == Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@evdev.ath.cx> writes: Taylor> Yes, I noticed this...and I mentioned it on the list a few emails ago. Taylor> I suggested that it come first, too, and asked whether or not this Taylor> change was OK with them; Sorry, I must have missed that. (I did do the cursory exam of the archives and googled for the relevant keywords, but came up empty.) Taylor> since you're the only person to have said _anything_ on this Taylor> list since my last email one and a half months ago, I think Taylor> the change _is_ OK. Great! Taylor> Too bad you hadn't done this extensive vector hacking back when the Taylor> concept of a draft period still occurred to some of us...well, do you Taylor> have opinions on the past few issues that I've brought up, namely the Taylor> things regarding VECTOR-COPY!, I agree with your conclusions. (Or is there anything unresolved I missed? If so, let me know.) Taylor> the insertion & deletion routines, Zap 'em, I say. Marginal value, conceptual & space overhead in the SRFI document. Taylor> and the issue regarding start+end versus N vector arguments? Hm, I actually think the way things are isn't half bad. This really is the kind of thing where only experience helps, so I wouldn't worry about it too much now. I do suspect, though, that the procedures under "Searchers" would be better off with start+end args rather than N vectors, though. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla