On July 1, 2019 11:30:38 AM GMT+05:30, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: >Hi again, > >I wrote earlier: >> With this in mind, if SRFI-121 is to be added to Guile, it should be >a >> high performance implementation. The implementation that you >provided, >> which I guess is primarily taken from the sample implementation, is >far >> too inefficient, at least on Guile. > >I should emphasize that there's no shame in not being able to meet my >high expectations for efficiency in a SRFI-121 implementation. The >code >that you provided would be quite reasonable in most contexts. > >In this particular case, because of the undesirability (IMO) of >generators as an API due to their imperative nature, with their primary >justification being the efficiency they can provide, I feel justified >demanding high efficiency in this implementation. Relatively few >people >would be able to meet those expectations. It requires knowledge of >Guile's implementation and compiler that relatively few people have. > >With that in mind, I hope that you will not be too discouraged by this, >and that you will consider contributing to our community in the future. > >Also, I will try to find the time to send a followup message with more >details on why the provided code would run inefficiently on Guile, and >how to improve it. > > Best regards, > Mark
Thanks, I will look at the issues you've pointed out. The requirement to have a high performance implementation makes sense. Amar Singh<n...@disroot.org> ---------------- Sent fromK-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
