Hi, Sorry, forgot to respond to another bit on this subtopic:
On Sat 14 Jan 2012 16:28, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > On Sun 08 Jan 2012 21:39, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > > >> More importantly, is there any guarantee that mutable lexicals will > >> continue to be represented as variable objects in future native code > >> compilers? Do we want to commit to supporting this uniform > >> representation in all future compilers? > > > > I don't know that we should commit to it externally, but internally it's > > OK. If we did have to commit to it externally even that would be OK, as > > I don't think it will change. > > You may be right, but committing to a uniform representation makes me > very uncomfortable. I can imagine several clever ways to represent > mutable free variables in a native compiler that don't involve separate > variable objects for each variable. In general, they all involve a storage location that is a word wide. Variables are tagged storage locations, nothing more. They are a good choice for mutable values. They are like Chez Scheme's or Racket's boxes. I have no qualms about variables here. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
