From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:37:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87zjkeqdc5.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87a9elkjmo.fsf@netris.org> <87txctzpjy.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <874n4tlka7.fsf@gnu.org> <87k3bjtevu.fsf@pobox.com> <87vbv2i55a.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1395776265 1942 80.91.229.3 (25 Mar 2014 19:37:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:37:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 25 20:37:56 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WSXAW-0001BT-5m for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:37:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43898 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSXAV-0006OO-NR for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:37:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37574) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSXAP-0006OE-Ff for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:37:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSXAJ-0003i8-3Y for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:37:45 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:33244 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSXAI-0003i0-VW; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:37:39 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6135210E9C; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:37:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=H6C0toLikyY6 nSwwjKHn85ItyIw=; b=BvLlE5zkn0WxOeAXpW5007hWT0ZQ6x4Z5PeD5p843UhG g5YUdqhWd+/v1qmR2gYmeYkie3/WwDZOk+kKxA7yg9O/dfrffvU0Z5NAVBNac/9Q m7ZahWwAd7IWkKb+TKJW97P4COrAblaGF47IKY84V831RBiwL/0bm0i/Ex8Zmgw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=UqKVgH zvlDM57Gbbe5KJSGM8Mje7skcfbLoaENnbYFPnwv+qhz4i0vu+3Zowk6ISuusaIZ YERx1I1dla+B6t9lWS60Eg8R/MLP+RvlZ29AAm05IHDWiPJWnLbP8muUXqcmMaji oBJn4r03M9lG4E3PTaZODdfuJxcHkCCqxZbDQ= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A83D10E9B; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:37:38 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B445510E9A; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:37:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87vbv2i55a.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:01:37 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EBDCE0EA-B454-11E3-B580-873F0E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 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:17010 Archived-At: On Tue 25 Mar 2014 18:01, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Tu put it differently, I don=E2=80=99t think it would buy us anything to = make > variable SRFI-111 boxes. Dunno; variables are slightly cheaper than records. Their type checks are easier and they take less memory.=20=20 > However, it could perhaps break code In what way? > and would not allow for a separate type printer, which is useful. Not sure what this point is, as the external representation was not specified in SRFI-111. Perhaps we are miscommunicating -- I would change what we currently call "variables" to be "boxes". WDYT? Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/