On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Alan Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > While I understand that more complete operations on byte vectors are being > left for the large language, their utility in the small language could be > significantly improved by adding bitwise operations on bytes (and only bytes) > along with perhaps bytevector-for-each and bytevector-map. Consider, for > example, the awkwardness of using byte vectors to represent bit sets without > bitwise operations. > > I would imagine that the burden on implementors would be small, since I can't > think of a Scheme that doesn't have bitwise operations on fixnums at least > and since the for-each and map procedures can be written in Scheme (although > there are advantages to standardizing them). > > Have these possibilities been considered by the WG? Would they be interested > in receiving a more complete proposal?
We did strongly consider incorporating bitwise operations as in (srfi 33) / (rnrs arithmetic bitwise), and decided to leave it to the large language. There was no question of it being controversial or of limited use, it's simply one place we decided to draw the line between large and small. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
