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 <nalagin...@gmail.com > <mailto:nalagin...@gmail.com>> 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 < > zelphirkaltst...@posteo.de <mailto:zelphirkaltst...@posteo.de>> 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 > > > > > > >
