Re: SRFI-151 (Bitwise Operations) Implementation

[Frank Terbeck]

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