From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: JonWilson Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Me no understand scoping Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:56:28 -0400 Message-ID: <48C9319C.2050205@wilsonjc.us> References: <87r69ccaus.fsf@unknownlamer.org> <489074A9.1080508@wilsonjc.us> <49dd78620807310020i8b55067gd22f6ce361a04d7d@mail.gmail.com> <49dd78620807311437g7ab367bdxed293a3b8dbd5753@mail.gmail.com> <49dd78620808021043h66f6d953uff37c35d018afb80@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1221145381 12359 80.91.229.12 (11 Sep 2008 15:03:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:03:01 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 11 17:03:48 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Kdnhw-0001tj-Qz for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:03:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37465 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kdngw-0002p6-Mi for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:02:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KdnfV-00028p-SJ for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:01:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KdnfU-000273-Dg for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:01:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35377 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KdnfU-00026s-7X for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:01:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgw1.fnal.gov ([131.225.111.11]:40712) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KdnfT-00048m-N4 for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:01:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailav2.fnal.gov (mailav2.fnal.gov [131.225.111.20]) by mailgw1.fnal.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.06 (built Mar 28 2005)) with SMTP id <0K7100HQHCIULQ@mailgw1.fnal.gov> for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:56:30 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from mailgw2.fnal.gov ([131.225.111.12]) by mailav2.fnal.gov (SAVSMTP 3.1.7.47) with SMTP id M2008091109563004938 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:56:30 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mailgw2.fnal.gov by mailgw2.fnal.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.06 (built Mar 28 2005)) id <0K7100C01D2PE5@mailgw2.fnal.gov> (original mail from jsw@wilsonjc.us) for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:56:30 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from [128.146.39.158] (roisin.mps.ohio-state.edu [128.146.39.158]) by mailgw2.fnal.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.06 (built Mar 28 2005)) with ESMTPSA id <0K71007L2DI57E@mailgw2.fnal.gov> for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:56:30 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20071114) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6761 Archived-At: Hi Andy, Andy Wingo wrote: > Do you see now why local-eval can't possibly work in the presence of > efficient compilation? Scheme does not give you the particular kind of > dynamism that you want. There is no hash table lurking inside a closure. Why not compile most closures away, but leave those that are necessary for the sort of semantics Maciek wants to work? Maciek more or less wants to reify environments (it seems), and have those be semantically the same as the variable lookup mechanism inside closures. It is certainly true that most continuations are not reified, many are compiled away, but it is still possible to reify exactly the ones that are needed and no others. Is it impossible for program analysis to reveal which environments need to be reified? If necessary, one could even require some sort of explicit tag on lambdas to say "This one gets reified." Of course, #scheme is probably a good place to discuss this sort of thing, but I can't really hold my own once a really technical discussion gets started there... Whether that's because I lack the expertise (likely) or because certain personalities are perhaps overly dominating (also likely), I don't know. Regards, Jon