From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Arthur A. Gleckler" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:18:28 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87r1mcfozv.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000091bba005b987ec1c" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10239"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Mark H Weaver , John Cowan , guile-devel@gnu.org, srfi To: Shiro Kawai Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 23 11:07:17 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l3Fp7-0002YB-Fa for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 11:07:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57792 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l3Fp6-0001Fr-Gm for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 05:07:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54160) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l38Vk-0001aX-ER for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 21:18:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm1-f42.google.com ([209.85.128.42]:54235) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l38Vi-0002NH-EU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 21:18:48 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm1-f42.google.com with SMTP id j18so5826119wmi.3 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:18:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B1ispVbr/KEBNkPqrtltEKpDmC5L+FGfWQMjBxo+kSE=; b=iPl98uUwb+dshAHB8fBscorN3JbHbQBqeUvX9b8gC9+9k9kffw4ZLk35VXNV1ZiNs4 DMPqEVw149dOFNxxP8N7w2zdu2CUkUNIz1MrPWYZrwcCRtlseURBojjEwq0IUNCDFpbH CsrI/Y/ULSE2hUo1WS5OQl0DANNLdqiU88XdBC8K8JBid9MMzmS+8qAU5CPyFP16vIAW cdaupEVHO/EiLuWq4QBFrnIPC18XfyDO/qQzzb8JrxG4qLi7Qoc0/rIPj8o+vO5VLOIl 3cl+B6Ace2nhl9JCef4I7Q2ypAewRR5AHvfZu9s86bUFDHQJx6MX4+EMLRIkvGLO27FS L5Rw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533M8t0DITuhwFVk/Hcr1eh2BNqvKMi42RGTEioYdvsGcPZYj6Ig ivqfmqIm+6JZ/I02vBhBlD1bpL1dcBm0Z5O+DxOKdg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUh6LKY66OHjJ9H2SJDpkKRBzReb2P14aNt4m5bqsESOohiro68+2AKJnnE/3M8CsKKfXBDKfYWfVn6ALd0L0= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e055:: with SMTP id x82mr6397370wmg.185.1611368324244; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:18:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.128.42; envelope-from=aag@speechcode.com; helo=mail-wm1-f42.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 05:06:54 -0500 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:20648 Archived-At: --00000000000091bba005b987ec1c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:15 PM Shiro Kawai wrote: > Hi Mark, > I agree that the whole point of generators is performance. When combined > with lazy sequences (srfi-127), it covers many typical use cases of streams > much more efficiently. > I've written Gauche version with performance in mind, but it depends on a > few non-standard features and can not be used as-is. Besides, if we do go > for performance, we need benchmark suites as well. I'm interested in > adopting Gauche version as the reference implementation but don't know when > I have time. If you have some code to improve the current reference > implementation and can merge it to the repo, we can proceed gradually, I > guess. > It's not a bad idea for the sample implementation to be as clear as possible at the expense of performance. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a supplemental document making recommendations about possible performance improvements, or even a second implementation. --00000000000091bba005b987ec1c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:15 PM Shiro Kaw= ai <shiro.kawai@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
Hi Mark,
I agree that the whole p= oint=C2=A0of generators is performance.=C2=A0 When combined with lazy seque= nces (srfi-127), it covers many typical use cases of streams much more effi= ciently.
I've written Gauche version with performance in mind= , but it depends on a few non-standard features and can not be used as-is.= =C2=A0 Besides, if we do go for performance, we need benchmark suites as we= ll.=C2=A0 I'm interested in adopting Gauche version as the reference im= plementation but don't know when I have time.=C2=A0 If you have some co= de to improve the current reference implementation and can merge it to the = repo, we can proceed gradually, I guess.=C2=A0

It's not a bad idea for the sample implementation to be= as clear as possible at the expense of performance.=C2=A0 But it certainly= wouldn't hurt to have a supplemental document making recommendations a= bout possible performance improvements, or even a second implementation.
--00000000000091bba005b987ec1c--