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: (no subject) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:29:40 +0100 (CET) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1036831605 15731 80.91.224.249 (9 Nov 2002 08:46:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 08:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ARGN-00045J-00 for ; Sat, 09 Nov 2002 09:46:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18ARGq-0007bB-00; Sat, 09 Nov 2002 03:47:12 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 18AR4P-0006NL-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2002 03:34:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 18AR3t-000690-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2002 03:34:20 -0500 Original-Received: from sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de ([134.169.132.52]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18AR3s-00068k-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2002 03:33:48 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA22183; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:29:41 +0100 (CET) Original-To: clinton@unknownlamer.org 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:1670 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1670 Clinton Ebadi wrote: > > I don't care how memoization works. I understand there are > > optimization issues. Optimizing isn't important to me, or > > I would not use an interpretive language as my "extension > > language". If you add a disabling mechanism, then you'll > > have the best of all worlds. You can memoize/optimize to > > your heart's content, and I'll disable it for my purposes. > > If that is not practical and Guile becomes, essentially, > > an semi-compiled language with constraints on where > > defines may happen, then my goose will be cooked. > > Not to mention how Guile wouldn't be Scheme anymore. Why can't code be > memiozied and compiled incrementally? First, why wouldn't guile be scheme any more if conditional definitions are disallowed? They are disallowed by R5RS, so actually, if you understand "being scheme" as "conforming to R5RS" then currently guile is not scheme and disallowing conditional definitions will bring it one step closer to "being scheme" :-) Second, certainly can code be memoized and compiled incrementally. However, this would have to be done every time the code was read in again, since in an expression like (if (define may change every time the code is read in. That is, we would reduce our possibility to pre-compile code. Pre compiling code, however, is one of our options to speed up guile's starting time (aside from optimizing guile's module system...). Best regards, Dirk Herrmann _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel