Hi Arthur,
"Arthur A. Gleckler" <s...@speechcode.com> writes:
> It's not a bad idea for the sample implementation to be as clear as
> possible at the expense of performance.
I agree that it's desirable for one of the sample implementations to be
as simple and clear as possible, for the purpose of clarifying the
specification.
> But it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a supplemental document making
> recommendations about possible performance improvements, or even a
> second implementation.
Sounds good. For SRFIs such as 121 and 158, where efficiency is
important, I think that a second sample implementation tuned for
performance would be a useful addition.
Regards,
Mark
