Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Mathieu Lirzin skribis:
>
>> One way to not break backward compatibility, would be to move (ice-9 q)
>> code in (ice-9 queue) and make (ice-9 q) use it and re-export every
>> variable with its old name.
>
> Right.
>
>> Finally we will need a way to give the information t
Mathieu Lirzin skribis:
> One way to not break backward compatibility, would be to move (ice-9 q)
> code in (ice-9 queue) and make (ice-9 q) use it and re-export every
> variable with its old name.
Right.
> Finally we will need a way to give the information that (ice-9 q) module
> is deprectate
Hey!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> I am working on improving our port implementation to take advantage of
> the opportunity to break ABI in 2.2. I am wondering how much I can
> break C API as well -- there are some changes that would allow better
> user-space threading
> (e.g. http://thread.gmane.org/g
Hello! :-)
Andy Wingo skribis:
> So, we have two questions, then: firstly, what semantic change can we
> make to the language to permit top-level and cross-module inlining?
> Secondly, how do we implement it?
As I view it, the first step would be to allow intra-module inlining
(inlining of una
Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> I have been working on a refactor to ports. The goal is to have a
> better concurrency story. Let me tell that story then get down to the
> details.
In addition to concurrency and thread-safety, I’m very much interested
in the impact of this change on the API (I’ve a
