[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] top level environment hygiene in Chicken source

From: Thomas Bushnell BSG
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] top level environment hygiene in Chicken source
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:12:55 -0800

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you intended this as a complete answer, or
only a partial one.  In case the latter, here is what I still don't

Using "usual-integrations" as documented doesn't promise any particular
inlining or optimization.  Is it being implicitly assumed that
usual-integrations on library.scm will do the right thing?  How is this
checked?  Isn't it kind of brittle to have that sort of remote
dependency, in which the correctness of library.scm depends on which
procedures happen to have inline or other definitions?

Is this really what's at work when library.scm is compiled to keep
redefinitions of cdr from messing with cdddr?  Or is there something
additional and more robust?

On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 00:41 -0600, Jim Ursetto wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Thomas Bushnell BSG <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Most of the procedures in library.scm are defined without the protecting
> > let capture; and by contrast, most procedures elsewhere are not.
> Using 'let' disables some optimizations and is in some places
> a holdover from when the compiler was not as good.
> > And eval.scm doesn't even have usual-integrations (or
> > equivalent) declarations!
> usual-integrations is the default.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]