On 30 April 2013 06:15, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > As I told you in an earlier mail I'm back cleaning up and reworking > guile-log and > refreshing the memory of the inner details of that code base enabled me to > rewrite > the spec for redo safe variables considerable. I think that it is much > cleaner now and > should be worthy of a good discussion. > > WDYT?
I had gotten the impression from your earlier emails that redo-safe-variables was really about having a category of variable that has its /binding/ captured as part of the continuation, rather than have the environments captured; because each invocation of that continuation shares those same environments and may mutate them. This seemed like a simple, fairly orthogonal extension to the language, but what you are proposing seems much more complicated. It may be useful to arbitrarily delimit what the continuation captures, but even if that is a good idea I don't think I understand the API. Later on it starts to sound like MVCC. Have I misunderstood your motivation, or your implementation? -- William Leslie Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely may reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to deny you those rights would be illegal without prior contractual agreement.
