Hi Hans,
I am indeed not interested anymore, but thank you for the feedback. I didn't think of adding a "typed array" type, that is a better solution. In any case, if someone wants this, they'll hopefully come across this email thread and figure out what to do.
Vladimir
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Hans Hübner hans.huebner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
I know that it has been a long time since you posted this patch and I did not comment, but here is my reply anyway:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Vladimir Sedach vsedach@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the updated patch with backwards compatibility (something which I always forget!). Unfortunately it is a bit ugly and I don't know how to make it better. I guess one lesson here is to add tags to all binary data if you're designing a new serialization scheme.
We already have tags for all data types. The patch that you've submitted thus is not really adding the feature at the proper level. If you are still interested, I would propose that you fix the problem by adding a new pair of encoding functions for typed arrays (%encode-typed-array and %decode-typed-array), a new type tag for that (#\t) and code in encode-array to decide whether an untyped or a typed array should be written (although I suppose you could always write typed arrays, too).
Again, sorry for the long delay. I'm only slowly picking up the work that I've been deferring for too long.
-Hans