Ken Hornstein wrote:
...
I'm a little confused by what you mean when you say you're with Paul V.
regarding bit vectors; Paul said that he didn't think bit vectors were
the right way to represent sequences internally. Okay, fine: what's
your suggestion? In theory anything is possible, but let me bring back
an earlier point: Norm's suggestion is literally a one-line code change.
a one line code change that takes the pressure off a real fix to a more
basic problem, has never been our friend.
the fact that this used to run on a pdp11 makes me think of the days of
pcc, where structure member names had to be unique across all
structures, variable names were only unique in their first seven
characters and so on. if we were doing this today we'd have an opaque
data structure and well defined accessors. the underlying implementation
might still be integers, or maybe not.
27, or 59, are arbitrary limitations. that ought to be beneath us at
this stage?
paul
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers