Re: Use core or SRFIs?

[Zelphir Kaltstahl]

Ah, but SRFI 151 is not implemented in my version of Guile:

~~~~~
scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-151))
While compiling expression:
no code for module (srfi srfi-151)
scheme@(guile-user)>
~~~~~

Guile version: 2.2.6 from Guix:

~~~~~
guile (GNU Guile) 2.2.6
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

License LGPLv3+: GNU LGPL 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html>.
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
~~~~~

Are you suggesting, that I copy the code for SRFI 151 from somewhere and
put it into my project?

Regards,

Zelphir

On 10/24/19 7:02 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> For bitwise integers, I recommend SRFI 151.  If you use your
> implementation to provide the seven core functions bitwise-not,
> bitwise-and, bitwise-ior, bitwise-xor, arithmetic-shift,
> integer-length, and bit-count, all of which have definitions in
> bitwise-core.scm that are very slow, then you'll have a package that
> can do pretty much what all the bitwise SRFIs provide and more with
> acceptable performance.
>
> There is a conversion table at the end of the SRFI between the names
> used by other SRFIs and the names used by SRFI 151; they are as close
> to SRFI 33 and SRFI 60 as practical.  It is part of the Tangerine
> Edition of R7RS-large.
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:43 PM Nala Ginrut <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
>     Personally, I prefer srfi. But sometimes I mix with RnRS.
>     I think it's better to avoid Guile specific things, however, Guile
>     provides
>     many good things that the standard doesn't have.
>
>     On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:56 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl <
>     address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
>     > Hello Guile Users!
>     >
>     > I have a question regarding usage of SRFIs in Guile code.
>     >
>     > Sometimes there are core functions, which are also available from an
>     > SRFI implementation. One example I am currently dealing with are
>     bitwise
>     > operations for integer numbers. There is SRFI 60 and there are
>     the core
>     > functions like logand, logior and so on.
>     >
>     > Usually I tend to think, that using the SRFI implementation in such
>     > situation is better, as it is an implementation of a common
>     interface,
>     > which other Schemes might also have implemented. Using that
>     makes code
>     > more portable to other Schemes. However, I want to be sure, that
>     this is
>     > a good way of thinking about it. Are there ever arguments
>     against using
>     > an SRFI implementation, when an SRFI implementation provides
>     what I need?
>     >
>     > Another example are structs. I usually use SRFI 9 to make some
>     structs,
>     > instead of the core record or struct type.
>     >
>     > What do you think?
>     >
>     > Best regards,
>     >
>     > Zelphir
>     >
>     >
>     >
>