[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push
From: |
Taylor R Campbell |
Subject: |
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:44:22 -0400 |
User-agent: |
IMAIL/1.21; Edwin/3.116; MIT-Scheme/7.7.90.+ |
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:14:51 -0700
From: Joe Marshall <address@hidden>
I think moving the transcript port from the property list to the port
itself would be worthwhile because this call chain happens a lot. It
would make ports a little bit bigger, but I don't think that's enough
to worry about.
I'm not particularly concerned about the size of ports, although I
wonder whether it would be better to do transcripts at a different
layer if we want to do them at all, as a wrapper around ports. For
that matter, does anyone ever actually use the transcript feature?
- [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Joe Marshall, 2009/09/10
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Chris Hanson, 2009/09/11
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Joe Marshall, 2009/09/12
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Taylor R Campbell, 2009/09/19
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Chris Hanson, 2009/09/19
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Taylor R Campbell, 2009/09/19
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Joe Marshall, 2009/09/19
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Chris Hanson, 2009/09/19
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Taylor R Campbell, 2009/09/20
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Joe Marshall, 2009/09/20
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push,
Taylor R Campbell <=
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Chris Hanson, 2009/09/20
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Chris Hanson, 2009/09/20
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] two changes to push, Joe Marshall, 2009/09/20