From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
Subject: Re: What are the arguments in favor of delay/force in eval.c?
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:23:53 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87oe3pwpeu.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <873bl13j6i.fsf@zip.com.au> (Kevin Ryde's message of "Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:11:17 +1100")
Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:
>> I was also wondering about the possibilities for deadlock with the
>> current code, and then what they might be with a srfi-45 force,
>
> Whenever arbitrary code executes in a mutex I guess there's scope for
> that. srfi-45 shouldn't be inherently worse.
I'm not sure either way yet. There are subtleties of srfi-45 that I
still don't fully understand. If you haven't already, check out the
reference implementation of force, and then the test cases.
I'll probably have to wait until I feel like I understand the detailed
semantics better before I can comment much.
> Second block of code is with two magic "uncomputed" values, one for
> normal and one for srfi-45 style lazy promises. If I understand how
> they're supposed to work :-).
You may have already noticed this, but I think the semantics of
SRFI-45 force/delay are supposed to be a strict superset of R5RS
force/delay, so in theory we might be able to have just one type of
promise.
--
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-10 4:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-06 21:14 What are the arguments in favor of delay/force in eval.c? Rob Browning
2005-12-07 21:31 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-12-07 22:47 ` Rob Browning
2005-12-08 0:29 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-12-08 0:52 ` Rob Browning
2005-12-10 0:11 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-12-10 4:23 ` Rob Browning [this message]
2005-12-14 21:10 ` Kevin Ryde
2005-12-08 0:57 ` Ken Raeburn
2005-12-08 1:28 ` Rob Browning
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87oe3pwpeu.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org \
--to=rlb@defaultvalue.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).