From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dirk Herrmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: status: separation of expansion/optimization/memoization/execution Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:51:45 +0200 (CEST) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028753493 32403 127.0.0.1 (7 Aug 2002 20:51:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 20:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cXmF-0008QV-00 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 22:51:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cXmm-0005FW-00; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:52:04 -0400 Original-Received: from sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de ([134.169.132.52]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cXmb-0005Bs-00; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:51:53 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA17442; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:51:45 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1006 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1006 On 5 Aug 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote: > Dirk Herrmann writes: > > > Basically, with the changes above everythings still works as before, that > > is, expansion and friends are still executed dynamically during execution. > > However, the functionality of each of the builtin-mmacros is more cleanly > > separated into different tasks with different responsibilities. And, I > > have added more exhaustive syntax checks into the expand_foo functions. > > Hmm, what is the purpose of this seperation? As far as I can see, the > important thing is the separate memoization from execution, not the > various stages of memoization itself. Well, I have to agree that I am not yet sure whether this separation is actually necessary. For me, this is a means to get a clearer idea of what is actually going on - especially in the context of weird stuff like the conversion of internal defines into letrecs and so on. And, it is actually quite simple to do this separation while doing the separation of memoization from execution. Maybe it makes sense to combine some of the steps later on. But, on the other hand, it may also be beneficial to have such a separation later, in order to be able to insert an optional optimization step between expansion and memoization. Best regards, Dirk _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel