[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: binary interface
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: binary interface |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:57:20 +0100 (MET) |
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Keisuke Nishida wrote:
> At Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:27:25 +0100 (MET),
> Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> >
> > BTW: Now that a mechanism for writing objects binary exists, are there
> > yet any benchmark results telling us about the benefits with respect to
> > size and loading time? If these are not significant, we should re-think
> > the idea of adding support for binary-writing, and instead take a look at
> > SRFI-10 as a means to store and read arbitrary data, potentially combined
> > with the (PROGN (SETF A (1 #1=(A B C))) (SETF B (2 #1#))) style for
> > denoting circular structures. After all, adding the possibility to binary
> > read and write objects is a big change, and its usefulness still needs to
> > be proven.
>
> (Just a quick response.) I want to load bytecode using mmap so that
> several processes can share the same memory. Isn't it a good reason
> enough?
I don't understant that. Why is sharing of memory dependent of the
question whether you choose a binary representation for storing?
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann