From: Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com>
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Threads and asyncs
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:24:35 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <21225.2744161107$1031008297@news.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k7m43si7.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:02:08 -0500)
From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
> If I understand correctly, one of the reasons guile used the "one (C)
> stack with copying" approach was so that call/cc could work properly
> with a stack that included intermixed C and scheme function calls
> without too much extra magic. If that's a correct assesment, then how
> do you deal with that problem in a stackless approach?
Well, blush....
I think I initially overvalued that feature. I (nowadays) don't
think it should be central to _any_ implementation.
Instead, i'd make an implementation that is good as just a pure scheme
implementation, then add in that seductive integration with that C
stack via a foreign-function interface. I think a good pure scheme is
not at all likely to use the C stack that way, especially for
procedures of central importance like `apply' and `eval'.
Most primitives, especially the core ones, would not rely on using the
C stack in the manner of SCM.
But since Guile is an extension language, one should _be able to_
write primitives that way (i.e. C-stack friendly), perhaps with a
modest performance trade-off, when necessary. That would let people
add Guile to programs with minimal disruption.
In fact, the C-stack-friendly API could be made largely implementation
independent.
If Guile never budges on the stack issue, I would still be inclined to
see it as an implementation optimized for cases when the C stack is
used heavily.
> It was also my impression that the call/cc issue, along with an
> aversion to having to explicitly deal with GC on the C side (which as
> you've pointed out before might be dealt with via preprocessing,
> etc.), were the two main things that would make switching to a
> stackless approach somewhat controversial or difficult. Are those the
> only two big issues, or are there others?
You've caught me talking from memory. We'd need to sit down with a
wiki or whiteboard and map it out together. I won't pretend to be
able to list all the issues off the top of my head. I won't pretend
to have finished my own personal map of the various design spaces :-)
Do you have a good library of Scheme implementation papers? Maybe
there should be a collaborative bibliography to bring together a bunch
of the good ideas floating around out there.
-t
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-02 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <87it1oglmq.fsf@zagadka.ping.de>
2002-09-02 21:24 ` Threads and asyncs Tom Lord
[not found] ` <200209022124.OAA07625@morrowfield.regexps.com>
2002-09-02 21:53 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-09-02 22:24 ` Tom Lord
[not found] ` <200209022224.PAA07962@morrowfield.regexps.com>
2002-09-02 23:51 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-09-02 23:02 ` Rob Browning
[not found] ` <87k7m43si7.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
2002-09-02 23:24 ` Tom Lord [this message]
[not found] ` <200209022324.QAA08246@morrowfield.regexps.com>
2002-09-02 23:36 ` Tom Lord
[not found] ` <200209022336.QAA08304@morrowfield.regexps.com>
2002-09-02 23:52 ` Lynn Winebarger
[not found] ` <0209021852361X.19624@locke.free-expression.org>
2002-09-03 0:57 ` Tom Lord
[not found] ` <200209030057.RAA08617@morrowfield.regexps.com>
2002-09-03 1:13 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
[not found] ` <87admzub73.fsf@becket.becket.net>
2002-09-03 1:29 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 1:31 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 1:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
[not found] ` <87ptvvubst.fsf@becket.becket.net>
[not found] ` <200209030128.SAA08719@morrowfield.regexps.com>
2002-09-03 1:23 ` RnRS process/history/documentation (was Re: Threads and asyncs) Lynn Winebarger
2002-09-03 1:27 ` Threads and asyncs Rob Browning
2002-09-03 1:34 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
[not found] ` <87u1l73ls1.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
2002-09-03 1:45 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 1:48 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-09-03 1:28 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 18:06 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-09-04 0:28 ` NIIBE Yutaka
2002-09-04 18:02 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-09-04 22:30 ` NIIBE Yutaka
2002-09-02 20:52 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='21225.2744161107$1031008297@news.gmane.org' \
--to=lord@regexps.com \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=guile-user@gnu.org \
/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).