On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:50:20PM -0500, Jim Ursetto wrote:
On Feb 16, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote:
On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:54, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
Just removing the port position bookkeeping altogether is better, I
think. I haven't done any benchmarks but Chicken's
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:48 AM, Moritz Heidkamp wrote:
Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com writes:
Unfortunately, I think it is essentially impossible at this time to
have the compiler do this automatically via type analysis. I believe
it is possible to get the compiler to treat string ports, for
On Feb 16, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote:
On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:54, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
Just removing the port position bookkeeping altogether is better, I
think. I haven't done any benchmarks but Chicken's notoriously awful
I/O performance might partially be due to
Hi all,
Here are two patches to restore row/column counting in read-line and
read-string, which takes care of #978. This is a cumulative based
on the *fixed* version of read-string (see my previous post to -hackers).
I split up the patches because I'm not 100% sure it's desirable to count
port
On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:54, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
Just removing the port position bookkeeping altogether is better, I
think. I haven't done any benchmarks but Chicken's notoriously awful
I/O performance might partially be due to the port position bookkeeping.
I seriously doubt
