Re: CPS thoughts

[Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1696 bytes --]

Hello,

Thanks for the review.

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:

> Some first thoughts on the CPS language, just after having looked at
> (language cps):
>
>  * Overall looking really good.
>

Thanks! You may choose to retract that after you see the other files, of
course. :-)


>   * License blocks are missing.
>
>  * Toplevel comments should be prefixed by ";;; " (three semicolons).
>
>  * Overview could go in the module commentary section.
>

These three should be simple to fix.


>  * Missing distinction between original names and unique names.
>

Yes, I agree. I think it even reuses original names sometimes, which is not
good. I should just rename everything.


>  * Missing source information.
>

The issue here is not that it's hard to pass source information through to
the compiler, but that I haven't figured out what to do with it when I have
it. I imagine that your ELF work has solved this problem.


>   * Missing procedure properties.
>

Can you explain what you mean? Does the compiler need to handle procedure
properties specially?


>   * Why is there no "let" that can bind functions?  You don't always want
>    to set up a recursive binding environment.
>
>  * Lambdas are missing lambda* and case-lambda support.
>

With these two, it's just that I haven't implemented it yet. I'll try to do
it quickly, although I don't know how much time I'll have to work on it.


> What do you think about rebasing?  wip-rtl-may-2013 is a good target
> until wip-rtl goes into master.
>

Sounds great! I think the compiler stuff is fairly separate from the RTL
stuff - when I've rebased it occasionally, it hasn't been a problem.

Best,
Noah

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3098 bytes --]