Hi Andy!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Sun 09 Aug 2009 18:41, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo writes:
[...]
>>> I've written lots of code that deals with srfi-4 vectors. I have three
>>> kinds of use cases. First is data being shoved around in a
>>> dynamically-typed system:
Hello Ludovic :)
On Sun 09 Aug 2009 18:41, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> The second model is when you already have a wide deployed base. You can
>> make additions to your API and ABI, and deprecated old API or ABI, but
>> you can't remove old API or change the
Hi Andy!
Andy Wingo writes:
> The second model is when you already have a wide deployed base. You can
> make additions to your API and ABI, and deprecated old API or ABI, but
> you can't remove old API or change the ABI. Incompatible breaks are
> painful, and the switching-over time is somewhere
Hi Neil,
On Thu 30 Jul 2009 23:10, Neil Jerram writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> On Wed 22 Jul 2009 23:48, Neil Jerram writes:
>>
>>> I have two overall questions in mind.
>>>
>>> - What do you have in mind as regards releasing this? Even though it
>>> looks good, I think it would be better
Andy Wingo writes:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On Wed 22 Jul 2009 23:48, Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> I have two overall questions in mind.
>>
>> - What do you have in mind as regards releasing this? Even though it
>> looks good, I think it would be better to let it mature for a whi
Hi Neil,
Thanks for the review.
On Wed 22 Jul 2009 23:48, Neil Jerram writes:
> I have two overall questions in mind.
>
> - What do you have in mind as regards releasing this? Even though it
> looks good, I think it would be better to let it mature for a while,
> and hence not to put it in
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Waouh, it's a lot of work, and reviewing it takes some time, too.
> Honestly, I'd rather spend the small amount of time I spend on Guile
> these days in other areas with higher priorities.
Hehe; yes, it certainly is a `mixed blessing' to have so many
contr
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> I've finished up my refactor of Guile's arrays. To my eye it's much
> nicer now.
Hey, great!
Several general remarks:
* Since I'm conservative and lazy, I'd have happily let this code rest
in peace. ;-)
In particular, last time I checked[*], we had poor
Andy Wingo writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I've finished up my refactor of Guile's arrays. To my eye it's much
> nicer now.
Yes, to me too. But I have two overall questions in mind.
- What do you have in mind as regards releasing this? Even though it
looks good, I think it would be better to let it m
Hi all,
I've finished up my refactor of Guile's arrays. To my eye it's much
nicer now.
The only bits I could anticipate being controversial would be the last
two or three patches, in which bytevectors are given an "element type"
field. This is so that I can make the srfi-4 uniform vector code use
10 matches
Mail list logo
