Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver writes:
>>
>>> I can take care of doing this myself, and will of course still credit
>>> you in whatever manner you prefer, but I've run into a legal problem: we
>>> don't currently have copyright papers for you on file. Are you
David Kastrup writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> I can take care of doing this myself, and will of course still credit
>> you in whatever manner you prefer, but I've run into a legal problem: we
>> don't currently have copyright papers for you on file. Are you willing
>> to file copyright pap
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> * module/srfi/srfi-1.scm (take-right, drop-right, drop-right!): The
>> definitions tended to be overly complicate and/or rely on pushing
>> material on the VM stack, detrimental to scalability for Guile 2.0 and
>> also worse for performanc
David Kastrup writes:
> * module/srfi/srfi-1.scm (take-right, drop-right, drop-right!): The
> definitions tended to be overly complicate and/or rely on pushing
> material on the VM stack, detrimental to scalability for Guile 2.0 and
> also worse for performance.
>
> The changed definition
David Kastrup writes:
> * module/srfi/srfi-1.scm (take-right, drop-right, drop-right!): The
> definitions tended to be overly complicate and/or rely on pushing
> material on the VM stack, detrimental to scalability for Guile 2.0 and
> also worse for performance.
>
> The changed definition
I like this patch, but I think your extended 'length+' procedure should
be given a different name.
Mark
* module/srfi/srfi-1.scm (take-right, drop-right, drop-right!): The
definitions tended to be overly complicate and/or rely on pushing
material on the VM stack, detrimental to scalability for Guile 2.0 and
also worse for performance.
The changed definitions lead to different, more accurate
