Re: SRFI-151 (Bitwise Operations) Implementation

[Frank Terbeck]

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