From: Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de>
Subject: Syntax checks
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 08:25:52 +0200 (MEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0204060805100.24933-100000@marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de> (raw)
Hello everybody,
in the evaluator, there are a lot of syntax checks performed that could
probably better be performed in a previous syntax checking phase, keeping
the evaluator itself free of such checks.
As an example, there is the 'do loop construct: In the body of the do loop
you only have to execute expressions that can have a side effect. We do
not have a proper analysis for which expressions can have a side effect
and which don't, but there is a simple syntactic criterion that can be
used: If the expression is not a list, then it is an object or a variable
reference and can't have sideeffects.
Thus, the body of the do loop could be scanned in the macro transformer
and freed of unnecessary expressions. Then, the corresponding check in
the evaluator could be removed.
I would like to apply such changes, but I have some questions:
* Removing unnecessary expressions from code would change the source in a
way that can't be restored by unmemoizing. Do we care? In the long run
we will probably want to allow more transformations on the source anyway
for the sake of optimization. Then, memoization/unmemoization won't work
and we will have to provide a different mechanism to record the
relationship between transformed code and the source.
* Should warnings be issued when dead code is eliminated from the source?
Best regards
Dirk Herrmann
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next reply other threads:[~2002-04-06 6:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-06 6:25 Dirk Herrmann [this message]
2002-04-06 15:38 ` Syntax checks Neil Jerram
2002-04-07 7:09 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-04-08 18:27 ` Neil Jerram
2002-04-07 10:40 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-04-09 20:48 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-04-13 9:01 ` Dirk Herrmann
2002-04-13 12:48 ` Neil Jerram
2002-04-13 18:28 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-04-13 18:10 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-04-14 18:18 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-04-14 18:11 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-04-23 21:55 ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2002-04-14 17:52 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-04-29 23:55 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-05-07 19:24 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-05-09 5:59 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-04-07 10:05 ` Marius Vollmer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.21.0204060805100.24933-100000@marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de \
--to=dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).