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: expansion, memoization, and evaluation... Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:10:00 -0600 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87heduh43b.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <87r8cyh5ec.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1038973324 24790 80.91.224.249 (4 Dec 2002 03:42:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 03:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dirk Herrmann , guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18JQQB-0006RA-00 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 04:41:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18JQSC-0000xT-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:44:04 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18JQRz-0000iZ-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:43:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18JQRv-0000gz-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:43:51 -0500 Original-Received: from n66644228.ipcdsl.net ([66.64.4.228] helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18JQRv-0000gu-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:43:47 -0500 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308BB14EF; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:10:04 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A08968BF02; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:10:00 -0600 (CST) Original-To: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se In-Reply-To: (Mikael Djurfeldt's message of "Wed, 04 Dec 2002 03:57:18 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1794 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1794 Mikael Djurfeldt writes: > Oops... This reminds me of another consideration I had when opting to > work on Scheme source: While methods are normally optimized at > generic application time, goops source can be compiled offline. > > If the optimizer does source --> source transformation it's reasonably > easy to use it together with an offline compiler. It's more difficult > to explain the memoized code to the compiler... OK, I'm confused (and I'm pretty sure most of the difficulty is on my end :>). I'm not completely familiar with how things work now, so could you explain a bit if you have time? In the above, am I right in presuming that by "work on Scheme source", you're referring to the way your goops code uses the combination of the scheme source and an envt representation during the process (that I don't yet know a lot about) of optimizing an invocation? Also in the above, when you say "optimizer does source -> source transformation", which optimizer are you referring to, and more generally, how would the offline compilation process go in your thinking? scm-sexp -> expanded-sexp -> goops-optimized-sexp -> .o file? or does the goops optimizer have to work in the dynamic envt at runtime? If so, is there a way we can build a goops optimizer that's more efficient than just falling back on eval? -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, 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