From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Anything better for delayed lexical evaluation than (lambda () ...)? Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:44:39 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87ty536iqg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87liqtpsl9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87obvclu92.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87aa6wbp0w.fsf@pobox.com> <87fwgolgm5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8762hkbkwi.fsf@pobox.com> <87borclcem.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87zkewa2vy.fsf@pobox.com> <87zkewjvyz.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87vcpka13n.fsf@pobox.com> <87zkewnzy7.fsf@netris.org> <87r5089ui3.fsf@pobox.com> <87r508nv0o.fsf@netris.org> <87fwgondme.fsf@netris.org> <87borboalb.fsf@netris.org> <87liqf5uty.fsf@pobox.com> <877h1zbg7s.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8739cn5la2.fsf@pobox.com> <87r507m5dg.fsf@netris.org> <87k45zm21r.fsf@netris.org> <8739cn7yoh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1323891910 10880 80.91.229.12 (14 Dec 2011 19:45:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:45:10 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 14 20:45:06 2011 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 1RaulD-0003P3-R3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:45:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34532 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaulD-0002Mt-4h for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:45:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45266) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaulA-0002Mj-F6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:45:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Raul9-0006Ou-CR for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:45:00 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:57063) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Raul9-0006Oq-5w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:44:59 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Raul7-0003N6-G0 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:44:57 +0100 Original-Received: from p508ecc79.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.204.121]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:44:57 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by p508ecc79.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:44:57 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 16 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508ecc79.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:sci15jzLMXUVZ5RHcwwYI9taoWE= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:13102 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > To be fair: this is what we currently do, and we only actually call > those lambdas that end up actually being recognized by the grammar. > So as long as (primitive-eval `(lambda () ,(read))) is guaranteed to > not ever choke, the potential for error is limited. Come to think of it: an actual optimizing compiler is quite more likely to get annoyed at (lambda () total-garbage-sexp) before one actually tries calling it. So even when letting Guilev1 and Guilev2 compete by letting both use the lambda-based implementation, we might run into more problems using Guilev2 because of having to wrap all _potential_ runtime candidates for lexical evaluation into closures. -- David Kastrup