From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: What are the arguments in favor of delay/force in eval.c? Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:14:12 -0800 Message-ID: <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 1133904769 27153 80.91.229.2 (6 Dec 2005 21:32:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 06 22:32:26 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EjkM1-0008BU-G9 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:28:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EjkM7-000093-SO for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:28:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ejk8s-0000UD-31 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:14:30 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ejk8q-0000Tf-SD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:14:29 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ejk8q-0000Tb-MK for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:14:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [70.85.129.156] (helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ejk9Z-0003dO-UN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:15:14 -0500 Original-Received: from omen.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F4490D2B for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:14:13 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (omen.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.1]) by omen.defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D15410E for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:14:13 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 156883C1001; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:14:12 -0800 (PST) Original-To: guile-devel@gnu.org 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:5466 Archived-At: 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.? (define-record promise ...) (define-syntax (delay exp) ... (make-promise ... (lambda () (exp) ...) ...)) (define-syntax (force promise) ... ((promise-get-thunk promise)) ...) Is the primary argument efficiency? I ask because I was thinking about SRFI-45 (perhaps in prelude to SRFI-40) and was trying to determine what Guile specific constraints might apply to an implementation. SRFI-45: Primitives for Expressing Iterative Lazy Algorithms SRFI-40: A Library of Streams If these were added to Guile, then we might want the SRFI-40 delay and force to just replace our existing implementations. Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel