Linus Björnstam wrote:
> Your bitwise-nand etc takes more arguments than they have to. They are
> 2-argument procedures according to the spec, which gives you better
> performance
> than the apply-dance you are doing now. Maybe have a bitwise-nand and a
> bitwise-nand*?
Yeah, I did that on purpose. The performance argument is probably valid,
though. However, I don't want to extend the API. Maybe I'll put in a
case-lambda there.
Thanks for taking a look!
Regards, Frank
--
In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- RFC 1925
