From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Anderson Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile and MS-Windows on Major Govt. Project... Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 18:11:46 -0400 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <3D1B1DCD.7090500@bitmead.com> <200206302346.11902.unknown_lamer@unknownlamer.org> <3D20E140.6050003@bitmead.com> <200207012113.58958.unknown_lamer@unknownlamer.org> <5.0.2.1.2.20020702112242.00b16ad0@zima.bbn.com> <3D22F264.9010502@bitmead.com> <3D25FFB4.9060500@bothner.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026134630 9804 127.0.0.1 (8 Jul 2002 13:23:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org, Timothy Hickey Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17RYUY-0002Y1-00 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:23:50 +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 17RX6f-00066X-00; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:55:05 -0400 Original-Received: from delysid.gnu.org ([158.121.106.20]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17RX0c-0002r0-00; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:48:50 -0400 Original-Received: from zima.bbn.com ([128.89.72.16]) by delysid.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #2) id 17QxvI-0002DJ-00; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 18:21:00 -0400 Original-Received: from ale.bbn.com (ale [128.89.72.125]) by zima.bbn.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g66MC3Y12795; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:12:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: kanderso@zima.bbn.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Original-To: Chris Bitmead , Per Bothner In-Reply-To: <3D265661.9030201@bitmead.com> 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:754 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:754 At 10:30 PM 7/5/2002, Chris Bitmead wrote: >>>Yeah, ok well they should be considered. But jscheme is an interpreter >>>within an interpreter == unnecessarily slow. None of them technically >>>are Scheme (no call/cc, blurry picture on full tail calls etc). >> >> >>I'm curious what you actually want to have full call/cc for - except as a >>"check-off (completeness) item. > > >As far as I know, I don't. Does anyone know prior to starting a project if >it is needed? Also, what if I pull in an external library that uses it? >Ok, I'm not quite experienced enough in Scheme to know how likely that is. I'm a beginner too, having only done Scheme for the past 4.5 years. To make it worse, my scheme never had call/cc, so i never learned how to take advantage of it. My current belief is that if your Scheme has full call/cc, you just use it. If it doesn't, you make do without it, because that's what you do in any language that's missing the feature you want. Dick Gabriel made a comment about Scheme once, that suggested to me that without call/cc Scheme is relatively easy to implement in languages like C and Java. Requiring call/cc is an extra step in language implementation. Probably a step as least as large as requiring GC. Perhaps we are currently more willing to live without call/cc than we are about living without GC. We need to provide good examples of using call/cc, so that future implementations will be more willing to provide it. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel