From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Amar Singh Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:51:16 +0530 Message-ID: <0D64B78F-0599-4EB4-80DE-3078986CBDCD@disroot.org> References: <3fb6ac24483457821130185b0e1f277c@disroot.org> <871rzaibt1.fsf@netris.org> <87woh2gupl.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="195564"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 01 08:21:40 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hhph5-000okP-7n for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 08:21:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48096 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hhph4-0006Zk-4R for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 02:21:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42360) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hhpgt-0006ZP-Ui for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 02:21:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hhpgs-0001eO-NW for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 02:21:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [178.21.23.139] (port=39850 helo=knopi.disroot.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hhpgq-0001be-4U for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 02:21:26 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by disroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A304B35BEB; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:21:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at disroot.org Original-Received: from knopi.disroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (disroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zoYV6LLWjb45; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:21:20 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail; t=1561962080; bh=95fPV7ePnbJ49csW0n3vI23BkNgCVdZU8gl7Ms1jJE0=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From; b=RRA1oSOnrrD7tOS2oRuglNeKCmv1iC+bcs6mA/DYCG0ycUkyLybVpsH/o0eTGbs4x DTxmSS3SE3xE3fTU+zv+KF8i7D1gV22IdOHbVghX/NiWqhaPQtk5QSdOFasJSfatXy /QNmz0NXPLLZPNdTSVyk03qvgbL0r+SdnsaUJAMKKAUul3quRLwU70aFkdhysC0KoS 8gpVVzdQ1QBp/t3yL+mnKYARecoc9Zhpk0vUYwPe4zImfWJ42SvRoGHpQUma/SF9oz QkApPFIf4pNo+w/p5L6UjMMPi68YP+VGjeXjMN+lR6+HpbzZUF4MxAsfwj/BqqDAS8 94AvlV01ZEuDA== In-Reply-To: <87woh2gupl.fsf@netris.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 178.21.23.139 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:20000 Archived-At: On July 1, 2019 11:30:38 AM GMT+05:30, Mark H Weaver wro= te: >Hi again, > >I wrote earlier: >> With this in mind, if SRFI-121 is to be added to Guile, it should be >a >> high performance implementation=2E The implementation that you >provided, >> which I guess is primarily taken from the sample implementation, is >far >> too inefficient, at least on Guile=2E > >I should emphasize that there's no shame in not being able to meet my >high expectations for efficiency in a SRFI-121 implementation=2E The >code >that you provided would be quite reasonable in most contexts=2E > >In this particular case, because of the undesirability (IMO) of >generators as an API due to their imperative nature, with their primary >justification being the efficiency they can provide, I feel justified >demanding high efficiency in this implementation=2E Relatively few >people >would be able to meet those expectations=2E It requires knowledge of >Guile's implementation and compiler that relatively few people have=2E > >With that in mind, I hope that you will not be too discouraged by this, >and that you will consider contributing to our community in the future=2E > >Also, I will try to find the time to send a followup message with more >details on why the provided code would run inefficiently on Guile, and >how to improve it=2E > > Best regards, > Mark Thanks, I will look at the issues you've pointed out=2E The requirement to have a high performance implementation makes sense=2E Amar Singh ---------------- Sent fromK-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E