Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> A faster possibility (aka. let’s release!) would be to add something
>> like that at the end of “Binary Input”:
>>
>> The (ice-9 binary-ports) module provides the following procedure as an
>> extension to (rnrs io ports):
>
Hi Ludovic!
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> A faster possibility (aka. let’s release!) would be to add something
> like that at the end of “Binary Input”:
>
> The (ice-9 binary-ports) module provides the following procedure as an
> extension to (rnrs io ports):
I like this idea, and
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver skribis:
[...]
>>> I've used it to unget 15 megabytes, and it was quite fast.
>>> Unfortunately, I'm at a bit of a loss of where to document it in the
>>> manual.
>>
>> What about adding a sentence to mention (i
Hi Ludovic,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> Here's an improved patch that also exports 'unget-bytevector' from
>> (ice-9 binary-ports).
>
> LGTM.
Excellent :)
>> I've used it to unget 15 megabytes, and it was quite fast.
>> Unfortunately, I'm at a bit of a
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> I discovered that 'scm_unget_byte' is kind of dumb. It puts the bytes
>> at the beginning of the pushback buffer instead of the end. This means
>> that every time you unget a byte, it has to shift up the existing
>> contents of the buffer, so
Mike Gran writes:
> It is true that none of Guile's clients ever look at putback_buf?
I'm assuming the worst: that Guile's clients might look at, and
manipulate the 'putback_buf' directly. The way I'm filling
'putback_buf' can *already* happen today.
Here's how it can happen today: unget enoug
>> I discovered that 'scm_unget_byte' is kind of dumb. It puts the
> bytes
>> at the beginning of the pushback buffer instead of the end. This means
>> that every time you unget a byte, it has to shift up the existing
>> contents of the buffer, so ungetting N bytes takes O(N^2) time.
>>
>>
it in the manual.
Comments and suggestions solicited.
Mark
>From 00c36fdd2e4d94a37fa416e3bc8436f66bba612a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark H Weaver
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 01:42:45 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Implement efficient 'scm_unget_bytes' and
'unget-bytevector'.
