From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Evaluator cleanup Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:31:17 +0000 Message-ID: <87y7mnchmy.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <87irdrplpq.fsf@chbouib.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172356296 28218 80.91.229.12 (24 Feb 2007 22:31:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:31:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@chbouib.org (=?iso-8859-1?q?Ludovic_Court=E8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 24 23:31:30 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HL5QO-0002Nl-Dk for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:31:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HL5QO-0002Uw-71 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:31:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HL5QK-0002Ur-Pp for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:31:24 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HL5QI-0002Uf-EI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:31:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HL5QI-0002Uc-7t for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:31:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HL5QH-0006cb-RE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:31:22 -0500 Original-Received: from laruns (host217-43-47-35.range217-43.btcentralplus.com [217.43.47.35]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCC440A7EC; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCDE6F70D; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:31:17 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <87irdrplpq.fsf@chbouib.org> ( =?iso-8859-1?q?Ludovic_Court=E8s's_message_of?= "Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:24:49 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6553 Archived-At: ludo@chbouib.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Hi, > > I have a patch that further "despaghettifies" the evaluator, as Han-Wen > would say. ;-) Can you say more about how your change despaghettifies the code? I can see that it makes eval.c shorter - but what else? > It adds two files, `eval-memoize.i.c' and > `eval-unmemoize.i.c', Do these need to be .i.c - i.e. implying that they need to be #included? Can't they be normal .c files? > and moves memoizers in the former and unmemoizers > in the latter. I assume the memoizer and the unmemoizer for a particular kind of expression need to be consistent with each other - is that right? If so, it seems to me that putting them in separate files might increase the likelihood of future mistakes. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel