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: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, master, updated. release_1-9-5-104-g8f79d4e Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:27:18 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87tyw21zka.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1260477045 20720 80.91.229.12 (10 Dec 2009 20:30:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 10 21:30:38 2009 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 4.50) id 1NIpem-00032r-Hh for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:30:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38078 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NIpem-0005vS-8P for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NIpej-0005uo-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:33 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NIpee-0005sx-GC for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:32 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57019 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NIpee-0005sm-AT for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:28 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:47255 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NIpec-0000XH-BK; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:26 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E76A5431; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:25 -0500 (EST) 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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=t64X1OxGr9rg yH7KrtSPNUOFAVk=; b=p1gVR1WsUZ/NbgtJAxUiqVAqXOP4h02j/2Emko9XZJdH S2IYz2QehO2Uv+gI0ZDAqBWdZum3bMTXbuMK2dbRU91smXhBA269u1QkcpYuTdJm pgl1tKYMmSLA5AU2zUvrovN7Tp/MPKV5UvonERJe/FM9y4Xfl964kULkPKgbk9s= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Od8JvY xEFkFcApDybGJnC8hiDzpfj4cDXLt7U46tWm5peYBh5IPTR5vVzHt34KmLFH35RG 2800N+SuEIwZ+cP9Ut5eoFIY2mCybBslpnYMQDK0k6xm6ae301OO2TT0BOcyew09 0ZFC1GrgA+tgIzx/E8CsHbiM/T5ZiJ2K/JQKk= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB49A5430; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:24 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [81.38.189.224]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5CE0A542A; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:30:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87tyw21zka.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:09:09 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D896460A-E5CA-11DE-939A-B34DBBB5EC2E-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:9751 Archived-At: Hi, On Mon 07 Dec 2009 18:09, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > "Andy Wingo" writes: > >> commit 9ea31741dad29ae123e468a203b72df6d190f6e1 > > I=E2=80=99ve always thought that smobs-as-structs would be a good thing, = not > only to reduce code size and simplify procedure dispatch, but also to > remove arbitrary limits like on the number of smob types. Yes, all this is possible. However I ran into some snags, and I wanted to wait until we had bytecode trampolines for subrs as Bruno Haible suggested before proceding further. > Ludo=E2=80=99, amazed by the pace at which things have been falling into = place > over the last couple of weeks! I just had a lot of branches that needed eval.scm to work :) Cheers, Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/