an alternative idea for general binary vectors Taylor Campbell (23 Mar 2005 23:55 UTC)
Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors Michael Sperber (24 Mar 2005 06:41 UTC)
Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors Taylor Campbell (24 Mar 2005 20:50 UTC)
Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors Michael Sperber (29 Mar 2005 14:28 UTC)
Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors Taylor Campbell (29 Mar 2005 20:36 UTC)
Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors Michael Sperber (30 Mar 2005 13:29 UTC)

Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors Michael Sperber 24 Mar 2005 06:41 UTC

>>>>> "Taylor" == Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@bloodandcoffee.net> writes:

Taylor> I'm just throwing this idea out there, however, somewhat in response to
Taylor> the objections raised about inconsistency with SRFI 4, not suggesting
Taylor> that this SRFI be changed to this new idea.  Does this idea have merit,
Taylor> or am I missing something important about it?

It's an intriguing idea.  However, note that as soon as you move
beyond bytes (octets, whatever) you get into endianness issues.  These
can be solved, but probably either complicate the API or compromise
efficiency to a degree.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla