Heya,
On Mon 02 Mar 2009 00:48, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> 1) It is expected that you don't have tail recursion between
>> interpreted and VM code.
>>
>> 2) This particular problem manifests itself in that call-with-values
>> is VM code (when r5rs.scm is compiled).
>
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Mon 02 Mar 2009 00:48, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> As for (1), I'm unsure. The issue is that as long as running code with
>> the interpreter is the default, people may hit this kind of problem,
>> which is, well, problematic. Now, I have no idea ho
Hi all,
I've been hacking at the compiler in recent days, separating out
expansion from compilation (currently they are intertwingled, which
produces some bugs), and making GHIL a more simple language, more
amenable to optimization.
I've grown to really like syncase in its psyntax.scm incarnation
Howdy howdy,
On Mon 02 Mar 2009 22:55, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> The compiler
>> recognizes both call-with-values and @call-with-values, so we could just
>> not compile call-with-values; less nasty, but still nasty, and penalizes
>> the vm in the (apply cal
Andy Wingo writes:
> I understand. I wish that we lived in a world in which (timewise)
> compilation + running == interpretation, so we could just do the former,
> but that is not yet our world. However both Chez and SBCL have the
> former model, so in a software engineering sense it might be wor
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Hey, walking in Dybvig's footsteps? ;-)
Andy Wingo wrote:
I can only hope to do so ;-) That guy is smart!
For those of us not lucky enough to attend his lectures at Indiana
University, here's a good video presentation by Kent on the subject of
macros:
http
