From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Non-stack-copying call-with-current-continuation? Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:48:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87eht9bmno.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87ty27eus4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87mx7zesuw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ipineqel.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1330796974 13389 80.91.229.3 (3 Mar 2012 17:49:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 17:49:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 03 18:49:33 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S3t5G-00009Y-Kc for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:49:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50416 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3t5F-0002cl-Ox for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:49:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43102) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3t5B-0002by-Tq for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:49:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3t57-0003je-GN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:49:25 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:49771 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3t4u-0003cB-0G; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:49:08 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB43839E; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:49:04 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=+nEHCcMquKmxkwZ9Cg4FqMn325Y=; b=pOAg+k lppA6GviMrnSeh2Ht0SReoDQ9Hs+rPVj8lBZA5Eucsh71y3bTpnlDSoyRa8pwCfr JTXyDOClJTZmpe6MPqtTz3hkt5OzQAb2iADrLthu64T2eBK0r4kYO1KaGeLIOO47 Hf7gLr3WyX5rWp1q+HV6mbnQLWvzkfB/0Tz+o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=wFq6t3RKNv1NYeunYlcQBOkoZMVfZqrD YOerZV1dF5Tw+2xcnVStfj2f3O1JKkoYkveu6e1Rzfmnu5PT41lphAS9o1hcb5WG LtMauY0012LkLtT0mwsqMKcnn9FKfegjQXsQP035IWXhmircDv83lUEAFC8fLw90 RYcfC9SC8Dc= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC440839D; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:49:03 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 483C2839C; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:49:03 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87ipineqel.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:35:14 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2A539974-6559-11E1-ACC3-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13991 Archived-At: On Fri 02 Mar 2012 02:35, David Kastrup writes: > Sure, but things like gensym and make-prompt-tag (and (list '()) for > creating an eq?-unique object) are artificial hygiene coming at a cost > in symbol table and symbol generation time rather than "lexical" > hygiene. "Hygiene" is not right the word here. "Hygiene" applies lexically -- statically. You want a continuation that only works within a certain dynamic extent -- that's dynamic. Unique objects are well-suited to the needs of dynamic problems. But really, your concerns are entirely misplaced. Choose clean, clear, optimizable abstractions. Call/ec is a good example. If you need to implement it, do so using whatever tools are at hand. If you can't implement it or it's slow, then bring these concerns forward. But to dismiss Noah's suggestions out of hand is inappropriate at this time. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/