From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kevin Ryde Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: What are the arguments in favor of delay/force in eval.c? Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:31:20 +1100 Message-ID: <87acfcfvbr.fsf@zip.com.au> References: <87hd9mgc7v.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1133991136 27589 80.91.229.2 (7 Dec 2005 21:32:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:32:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 07 22:32:13 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ek6t8-0002Nr-B4 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:31:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ek6tO-0000WV-5j for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:32:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ek6tJ-0000WD-5j for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:31:57 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ek6tH-0000Vy-EJ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:31:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ek6tG-0000Vv-JT for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:31:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [61.8.0.84] (helo=mailout1.pacific.net.au) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ek6uA-0002Rb-Ha for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:32:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.86]) by mailout1.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jB7LVV6s024786; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:31:31 +1100 Original-Received: from localhost (ppp2468.dyn.pacific.net.au [61.8.36.104]) by mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jB7LVUdx012433; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:31:30 +1100 Original-Received: from gg by localhost with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ek6sj-0002Bh-00; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:31:21 +1100 Original-To: Rob Browning Mail-Copies-To: never In-Reply-To: <87hd9mgc7v.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> (Rob Browning's message of "Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:14:12 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:5487 Archived-At: Rob Browning writes: > > Does anyone know what the arguments are, if any, for implementing > delay and force directly in eval.c rather than more generically, at > the Scheme level, perhaps in boot-9.scm via define-record, lambda, > etc.? I imagine some C code is less bytes for a promise object. (Speaking of which, I'd thought before that once a promise is forced it shouldn't need a mutex any more, which would save a bit of time and space.) _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel