Hey again! I just re-read my message and noticed it could come off as somewhat dismissive. Ah, the joys of not having English as a first language while being a tired father :)
I looked through your code. It is nicer than mine, but why did you chose to not just re-export bindings that are available in srfi60? I don't know the practical implications of not doing so, but I read in another thread of potential cross-module Inlining, and helping that optimization in every way you can would be a great thing for low level stuff like bit fiddling :) If you want you can just copy it from my module declaration. You can have it, no attribution required. Or you could just do the renaming in the #:re-export clause. -- Linus Björnstam On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, at 13:52, Frank Terbeck wrote: > 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 >
