Re: Redo Safe Variables, New take

[William ML Leslie <william.leslie.ttg@gmail.com>]

On 30 April 2013 06:15, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.itampe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As I told you in an earlier mail I'm back cleaning up and reworking
> guile-log and
> refreshing the memory of the inner details of that code base enabled me to
> rewrite
> the spec for redo safe variables considerable. I think that it is much
> cleaner now and
> should be worthy of a good discussion.
>
> WDYT?

I had gotten the impression from your earlier emails that
redo-safe-variables was really about having a category of variable
that has its /binding/ captured as part of the continuation, rather
than have the environments captured; because each invocation of that
continuation shares those same environments and may mutate them.

This seemed like a simple, fairly orthogonal extension to the
language, but what you are proposing seems much more complicated.  It
may be useful to arbitrarily delimit what the continuation captures,
but even if that is a good idea I don't think I understand the API.
Later on it starts to sound like MVCC.

Have I misunderstood your motivation, or your implementation?

--
William Leslie

Notice:
Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered
under copyright law.  You absolutely may reproduce any part of it in
accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this
in.  Any attempt to deny you those rights would be illegal without
prior contractual agreement.