On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:13:48PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote: > [replying to Peter] > > > I don't grok what you are saying here. Do you want to copy the entire > > CHICKEN 4 egg list to CHICKEN 5? It may be better to copy individual > > eggs later, when we've finished all our module refactorings. That way, > > the eggs won't all break at once, and only the eggs people are really > > interested in will survive the transition. > > I think as many eggs as possible should make the transition, at least > those that are in svn.
They'll still have to be ported one-by-one, as probably every egg will break. > > Maybe not just for internal use. Perhaps a chicken.string module could > > contain these things plus the CHICKEN-specific ones from data-structures, > > like string-intersperse and such? these functions are useful to user > > code, too. Especially if we optimise them by removing all the silly > > polymorphisms from the SRFI-13 implementation. > > By restricting them to internal use, we can use faster variants, and > it will make user-code less confusing if it uses the "official" > eggified definitions. As you know, one of the problems with SRFI-13 is that it's extremely inefficient. It would make sense if user code can also rely on faster alternatives. One of the rules of CHICKEN optimization has long been to avoid SRFI-13 if you can. > Otherwise people will start mixing official and > internal SRFI procedures. Isn't one of the goals of CHICKEN-5 to make > the API cleaner? I don't see how providing faster alternatives to SRFI-13 procedures is mutually exclusive with making a cleaner API, unless you're planning on making completely unsafe versions. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
