From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Lua Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:29:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275593315 23959 80.91.229.12 (3 Jun 2010 19:28:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:28:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: No Itisnt Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 03 21:28:27 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKG5b-0006dv-AZ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:28:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49071 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OKG5Z-0005tH-Vd for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:28:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58658 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OKG5T-0005kL-Nt for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:28:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKG5M-00063K-9S for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:28:13 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:56784 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKG5M-0005tJ-7e for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:28:12 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2BCB954A; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:27:00 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BtG0C+lK/y1Z68c8AdmoDhc4lHs=; b=api3m0 UKMVB8CiPkV3mdYC1xr2ztxUd2dKSQKxTIEyL+LQrxliowcindswFodLWlqiwQDH 67avndhk7UdTg/wbbGifh7vwSylBVFTgKoUszCz7o6r1t34YDLAu0V2nzV4vuKow F1m0whPi9+mGq3ezc+yBN6wWrf2h0VGAIvTME= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=HpDgpDzAhzj9WIDsymW1JR8Ag4HNUf72 FTXRUpzIxkAdjgNTmGznF9vuD/oe/lsdOUPCPihTdrTrOjAoOf6JHbMya0nZrGhU veq8Iml26PULpLoUVubAW4WWTSEbAR7AWnfmD1LlSDCgIOrli3irFjicrwfHmUct etd0pXtG9Ag= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B959CB9549; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [81.38.185.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DBECB9548; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:26:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (No Itisnt's message of "Thu, 3 Jun 2010 03:32:47 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FAE66410-6F45-11DF-99E0-6730EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10429 Archived-At: Heya, On Thu 03 Jun 2010 10:32, No Itisnt writes: > - Right now I've stuffed everything into one file. When it doesn't > recompile automatically (as in I run it without making changes, after > a run that autocompiled it) it can't resolve MAKE-APPLICATION from > (language tree-il) so a bunch of my tests cause errors. Any known bugs > that would cause that? Not a known bug, no. Can you make a test case? http://www.slate.com/id/2081042 > - Will Guile correctly optimize explicit returns as tail calls? I > couldn't tell from a quick look but my gut feeling is that it only > optimizes implicit returns, as opposed to those using (primitive-ref > return)? No, it will not. The primitive-ref return thing is a hack; the proper way to do this (I think?) is to use prompts and aborts, and also enhance Guile's compiler to do source-to-source translation of Tree-IL in which an intraprocedural abort to a prompt with a fresh tag that cannot escape the prompt expression does some kind of CPS on the expression to leave the return expression in tail context. Otherwise we could add `return' to Tree-IL, but that is nasty I think; or another hack (nasty, but perhaps expedient). Better to CPS, in the long run anyway. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/