> > That's why I asked in advance what people wanted > (is lib size or runtime memory or speed more important?), > and since the only response I got was "could you provide > a patch" I sent what I think is the best option. > > If we want to trim down the size, there's quite a lot that > can be removed from iset. Almost all of the bit-vector > operations can be removed, and because of the odd way > I defined those I believe that's taking up most of the > space.
I want lib-size and speed, please. I'd also like to point out that I appreciate that you provided a patch and am very grateful for your support. And that's not meant in any way ironically. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
