From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GH replacement proposal (includes a bit of Unicode) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:25:55 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87hdvbwne4.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> References: <877jw87hjv.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <408807DA.2030307@dirk-herrmanns-seiten.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1082680082 15338 80.91.224.253 (23 Apr 2004 00:28:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:28:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, Marius Vollmer Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 23 02:27:52 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BGoXo-0001AU-00 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:27:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BGoXl-0004bD-SK for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:27:49 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1BGoWm-0004OR-1w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:26:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1BGoWD-0003rc-9U for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:26:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [66.93.216.237] (helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BGoWC-0003qS-H5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:26:12 -0400 Original-Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (omen.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.1]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3A2408E; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:26:05 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 79A9B410C7; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:25:55 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: Dirk Herrmann In-Reply-To: <408807DA.2030307@dirk-herrmanns-seiten.de> (Dirk Herrmann's message of "Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:58:50 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 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 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3630 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3630 Dirk Herrmann writes: > IMO, looking at the problems with the separation of memoization and > execution, the problems with the generational garbage collector, the > problems with the module system: If more internals of guile would have > remained hidden from the start, allowing us to optimize stuff behind > the scences, guile would have a much better performance today! I spend > 90% percent of the time that I work on the separation of memoization > and execution thinking how I can incrementally introduce my patches > such that the big incompatible change is postponed as late as possible. Hmm. So if we're going to have to make that change anyway (before 1.8?), then why delay (presuming the incremental approach slows you down)? I don't mean to imply there's not a reason, I just wanted to understand it. 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://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel