Hi,
Linus Björnstam wrote:
> 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 :)
Didn't strike me particularly as such. So, all is good.
> 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
I actually didn't think about it too much. I was more focused on making
the implementation match the order used in the specification and add
documentation to all API so it can be followed in a straight forward
manner.
> 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 :)
Sure. I must admit that I haven't really played a lot with Guile's com-
piler and optimiser. I wonder what the impact would be here. Remember
the subject of said thread?
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
