From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:54:59 +0000 Message-ID: <87d4un6nv0.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <818B5317-4F09-46F3-9376-43292CEB3C16@iro.umontreal.ca> <47229C5E.8070406@emf.net> <87640rm7ec.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87hckbkpho.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87d4uykkes.fsf@laas.fr> <87ejfd7fnq.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <877il57wyt.fsf@laas.fr> <2bc5f8210710300801o6de398aeg968bcb73bb0cc5e@mail.gmail.com> <87zlxzmnqp.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194386128 8756 80.91.229.12 (6 Nov 2007 21:55:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:55:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Development To: "Julian Graham" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 06 22:55:32 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IpWOI-0002Tr-GP for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:55:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpWO7-0007FE-IU for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:55:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpWO2-0007EO-Jf for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:55:06 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpWNy-00079w-St for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:55:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpWNy-00079O-Gv for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IpWNx-0006Vi-RM for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-145-183-175.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.183.175]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B161F68A0; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:55:00 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from laruns (unknown [192.168.0.10]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A73038009; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:54:59 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <87zlxzmnqp.fsf@laas.fr> (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s's?= message of "Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:12:46 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:6888 Archived-At: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Besides, I think using libgc would yield a number of practical > improvements for the end user: `scm_set_smob_mark ()' would become > useless in most cases I think I understand the point here, and it seems to me that this is an improvement for the developer, not for the end user; and IMO not a significant one (because it's pretty trivial to write a smob mark function). It also implies a performance cost, from scanning regions of SMOB memory that Guile currently knows cannot contain heap pointers. > and so would `scm_dynwind_free ()', > `scm_set_smob_free ()' could be avoided almost entirely in guile-core, > memory leaks would become less likely in the presence of non-local > exists, marking a tree-like structure would just work (see > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs/3558), etc. (I don't understand these ones in detail, so there may well be significant benefits here.) > OK, so my goals for 1.9 would be: > > * Evaluate `libgc'-based Guile (see above). > > * Rewrite the interpreter in Scheme (or a subset thereof), with a > tiny Scheme-to-C compiler. That could be done in such a way that we > could re-use, e.g., the memoization and unmemoization code that > already exists in the first step. Interesting. Do you think that that would be a lot faster than the C code we have now? > * Provide a documented C doc snarfing tool, written in Scheme, with a > public Scheme doc snarfing API. I started looking at it based on > the modules I wrote for doc-snarfing in Guile-{Reader,Avahi,GnuTLS}. Great; I've been thinking that we need this too. > * Provide some Unicode support. The hardest part, I think, is that > we'd probably need to rewrite/extend the C port API. I'm pretty Unicode-ignorant, but I've read enough to think that this area is important. Is the problem with the C API just that it has "char" everywhere? Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel