On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Felix <
> fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > That's why I asked in advance what people wanted
>> > (is lib size or runtime memory or speed more important?),
>> > and since the only respon
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Felix <
fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 th
From: Alex Shinn
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Adding iset to core and using it for
Unicode-capable SRFI-14.
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 00:44:27 +0900
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:02:44AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
>&
>
> 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 re
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:02:44AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > iset manages integer sets. The srfi-14 proposed
> > is a thin wrapper around iset, first translating chars to
> > integers. We could alternately remove the integer
> > interface a
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:02:44AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> iset manages integer sets. The srfi-14 proposed
> is a thin wrapper around iset, first translating chars to
> integers. We could alternately remove the integer
> interface and just use chars for everything.
That would require an entir
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:10:25PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > Alternately we can drop iset and just define everything
> > in terms of chars to begin with, but I think iset is useful.
>
> Could you elaborate on this comment? I don't understand
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:10:25PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> Alternately we can drop iset and just define everything
> in terms of chars to begin with, but I think iset is useful.
Could you elaborate on this comment? I don't understand what
you mean by "define everything in terms of chars".
> T
> One thing I haven't done yet is update the types db.
> This is just equating char-sets and isets - if we want
> the two disjoint I can make a char-sets a thin wrapper
> around isets.
>
> Alternately we can drop iset and just define everything
> in terms of chars to begin with, but I think iset i
