Heya Noah, A brief note:
On Sun 08 Jan 2012 22:15, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: > I do think there's a problem with plain CPS, though - it forces you to > pick an order for the evaluation of function arguments. I would like > to use CPS with some sort of parallel-call operator, so we can leave > the order undefined (maybe at some point an optimizer will want to > adjust the order). What do you think? > > I also noticed that at the end of that blog post you said you were > considering ANF versus CPS for Guile (I assume you'd already decided > that you didn't like Tree-IL). Does this mean you decided on CPS? I guess I'd like to see if it's a good idea or not. We definitely do need a parallel binding operator. I haven't already decided on it but I am interested. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
