From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Linus_Bj=C3=B6rnstam?= Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 07:49:35 +0100 Message-ID: <2f52c109-4ad7-4967-b3d0-12f7590f2dfa@www.fastmail.com> References: <87r1mcfozv.fsf@netris.org> <87lfckf9ac.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="34456"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-78-g36b56e88ef-fm-20210120.001-g36b56e88 Cc: srfi , Shiro Kawai , "Arthur A. Gleckler" , guile-devel@gnu.org To: "John Cowan" , "Mark H Weaver" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 26 07:50:37 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l4IBR-0008pf-84 for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 07:50:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46172 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l4IBO-0004Gt-QK for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:50:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47536) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l4IAr-0004Gk-1P for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:50:01 -0500 Original-Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.20]:47659) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l4IAp-0001IT-FN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:50:00 -0500 Original-Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FEEFA1; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:49:57 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from imap1 ([10.202.2.51]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:49:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=veryfast.biz; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=f7jpJ 0WYrBwVR673ODUlo/Ll/apq/s2wTFbet5uBjt0=; b=hW87CPWnt5sirMqCdn6Ng Q7WEMaPpFEQi0PCu0lt5LtZzSGMHY55QIrtItLuEHh0JOmTs0CVgCX2AIUp948IG LpOE1igqp+j4raHm/tX4Jj6zzuoBslJT86CIO50V2DYGB0bqhNTSTNLnFHVScc61 7fJs6N86qwjxDh2eCeQE5M3pNwRcoZPaxKyhQPPyI9xWM6qaHPhAwBdcFZIConsM iRajnYLq+TfqfHD/iOFdVsgQLVZXwupNVON/QqTYnOLRBVjCbGTQy5OhMz5A9TQb i0KbylhG3qBcQ8gjxFnNKJ9zDoIAQER2+75ZymKERjaOcItBrHtJOnIQxw3NZZ4Q A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=f7jpJ0WYrBwVR673ODUlo/Ll/apq/s2wTFbet5uBj t0=; b=iR4Dx9xXcnnO5i2vrcveMMlMBpm2KY1D00tJIGHKBC6pc1vp1yCukC1E+ fMMyDsBhWO8eYlQxIPojfB6OXCaKkTVD0cO/0iYVErJiMHh4fbwDCdzdEBN5TGQj EbllGpIE5cbAIsl3DsvLcF/F484YgBikD9M6lhc/eyRN8oSUSL7XwC13tBsuKRlw g2qFlAPwTln4ERWlUi+fWKYUYJ3ACqit2yMifWsBob2R4bWwKLDDvx92uj2n4fuv B8vlrSilP/b7TkU3B9mCJtn3tpZhXm7lDkL5esABJJwr51IUDOPsdDJUZC9qAPwA 4actmymZRcg+UQeI0V0xrlM0ms8mg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdeggdeliecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesthhqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepnfhinhhu shgpuehjnphrnhhsthgrmhcuoehlihhnuhhsrdgsjhhorhhnshhtrghmsehvvghrhihfrg hsthdrsghiiieqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptedvueetheeukeethfduvdejleetffeu vddvueduieeuvdettdeuheehvdejieffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepudenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhhinhhushdrsghjohhrnhhsthgrmhesvhgvrhihfhgr shhtrdgsihii X-ME-Proxy: Original-Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 35F58130005D; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:49:57 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.20; envelope-from=linus.bjornstam@veryfast.biz; helo=wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:20652 Archived-At: Sorry, I though this was in the guile mailing list. --=20 Linus Bj=C3=B6rnstam On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, at 07:48, Linus Bj=C3=B6rnstam wrote: > Hi Y'all! >=20 > I have an efficient, almost done implementation of srfi-121. I believe= =20 > it lacks generator-unfold, but that is all. make-coroutine-generator i= s=20 > implemented using delimited continuations and runs a lot faster than=20= > the one in the reference implementation, with the caveat that it is=20= > apparently slightly incompatible: the coroutine generator usage in=20 > (srfi 146 hash) yielded the wrong result - despite my version passing=20= > all tests. >=20 > If the maintainers of guile are interested, I could clean this code up= =20 > and add accumulators and make sure it conforms to the srfi document.=20= >=20 > I have already spent some time integrating srfi-171 into guile, so I'm= =20 > not entirely unfamiliar with the task. >=20 > Best regards > Linus Bj=C3=B6rnstam >=20 > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, at 04:29, John Cowan wrote: > > Note that 121 is withdrawn, so people should implement 158. > >=20 > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:38 AM Mark H Weaver wrote= : > > > Hi Arthur, > > >=20 > > > "Arthur A. Gleckler" writes: > > > > It's not a bad idea for the sample implementation to be as clear= as > > > > possible at the expense of performance. > > >=20 > > > I agree that it's desirable for one of the sample implementations = to be > > > as simple and clear as possible, for the purpose of clarifying the= > > > specification. > > >=20 > > > > But it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a supplemental document m= aking > > > > recommendations about possible performance improvements, or even= a > > > > second implementation. > > >=20 > > > Sounds good. For SRFIs such as 121 and 158, where efficiency is > > > important, I think that a second sample implementation tuned for > > > performance would be a useful addition. > > >=20 > > > Regards, > > > Mark