From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Threads and asyncs Date: 04 Sep 2002 19:30:14 -0700 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87ptvtjhhl.fsf@becket.becket.net> References: <87it1oglmq.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <02090418461625.19624@locke.free-expression.org> <200209050020.RAA18890@morrowfield.regexps.com> <02090420452627.19624@locke.free-expression.org> <200209050238.TAA19359@morrowfield.regexps.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1031192849 18991 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2002 02:27:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 02:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: owinebar@free-expression.org, 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 17mmMh-0004w9-00 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:27:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17mmOI-0007Nr-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:29:06 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17mmNg-0007II-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:28:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17mmNe-0007I6-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:28:27 -0400 Original-Received: from vp190174.reshsg.uci.edu ([128.195.190.174] helo=becket.becket.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17mmNd-0007I2-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:28:26 -0400 Original-Received: from tb by becket.becket.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17mmPO-0004hp-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:30:14 -0700 Original-To: Tom Lord X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute permission for an emailed response. X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51 63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92 X-Windows: Flawed beyond belief. In-Reply-To: <200209050238.TAA19359@morrowfield.regexps.com> Original-Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 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:1291 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1291 Tom Lord writes: > And, again, I'm talking a little bit pie-in-the-sky. Should Guile > never undertake to change its core away from (for example) > conservative GC, if it converges on a nice API, then it is simply an > implementation optimized for that particular API. #f/() is the only > irreconcilable issue I know of in this regard. (Please, tb, spare us > a rehearsal of jimb's design -- we all either agree with me, know i'm > wrong, or already know the arguments. Ok, now, please say something > argumentive *anyway*.) What "reconciliation" is needed? Who does guile have to reconcile with? _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel