From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile: What's wrong with this? Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:31:57 -0500 Message-ID: <87ty4bfheq.fsf@netris.org> References: <4F027F35.5020001@gmail.com> <1325603029.22166.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4F032C41.3070300@gmail.com> <877h17hjj2.fsf@netris.org> <1325687351.71432.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <874nwbs9c4.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325701959 9347 80.91.229.12 (4 Jan 2012 18:32:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:32:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Bruce Korb , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 04 19:32:33 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiVdZ-0008Bv-Cy for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:32:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47890 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiVdY-00032l-St for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:32:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiVdP-0002x5-V9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:32:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiVdJ-0002bV-8j for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:32:23 -0500 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:49519) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiVdI-0002bI-VN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:32:17 -0500 Original-Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiVdD-0000RA-NM; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:32:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <874nwbs9c4.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:47:55 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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 Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13283 Archived-At: Andy Wingo writes: > We could add a compiler option to turn string literals into (string-copy > FOO). Perhaps that's the thing to do. I think this would be fine, as long as the default is _not_ to copy string literals. This would help Bruce a great deal with very little effort on our part, without mucking up the semantics for anyone else. David Kastrup writes: > What for? It would mean that a literal would not be eq? to itself, a > nightmare for memoization purposes. I agree that it should not be the default behavior, but I don't see the harm in allowing users to compile their own code this way. The memoization argument is a bit thin. How often is it useful to memoize against string arguments using eq? as the equality predicate? Remember, this would only for be for code that explicitly changed this compilation option. Best, Mark