[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?
From: |
Thomas Bushnell, BSG |
Subject: |
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_? |
Date: |
12 May 2001 12:37:58 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 |
Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:
> Note that I believe the current primary tactic is for the other
> languages to be translated via a front-end into a low-level scheme
> representation that will then be executed by the interpreter, a VM, a
> JIT compiler, or perhaps .so code generated via C->gcc->so
> conversion. All of these options are being discussed on guile-devel
> right now, and we may end up with a hybrid in the end.
I think that's a poor version. We should translate the other
languages into Scheme. The ease of doing this is precisely why Scheme
was chosen.
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, (continued)
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Keith Wright, 2001/05/07
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Bill Gribble, 2001/05/07
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Evan Prodromou, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Keith Wright, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <=
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jeff Read, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Ken Fox, 2001/05/11
- Message not available
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jeff Read, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jürgen A. Erhard, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/12
- more on continuations, Bill Schottstaedt, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/12