Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] improving integration of VALUES and CALL-WITH-VALUES

[Taylor R Campbell]

   Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:57:43 -0700
   From: Chris Hanson <address@hidden>

   I think it would be useful to amend the comments in the patch to show
   the additional arguments.  Without those arguments, there's no
   justification for the conservative treatment.

What are the additional arguments here?  I've attached an amended
patch with more comments; does this explain it better?

   Alternatively, you could restrict the optimization to one without
   addtional arguments, and be less conservative.

I think there are few programs that more aggressive transformations
would improve beyond what the conservative transformation improves,
and exceedingly few that any middle ground between the two
transformations I implemented would improve beyond the the
conservative transformation.

By the way, I don't know anything about how LIAR exploits programs'
ambivalence about order of evaluation.  Maybe the more aggressive
transformation improves the code better than LIAR would anyway, in
which case I'd be happy to commit that instead.

combination-operator.patch
Description: Text document