On 04/29/13 12:10, Mark H Weaver wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 28 April 2013 03:57, Andrew Gaylard wrote:
Those 0x304 values look dodgy to me, and explain why the
SCM_SETCDR causes an invalid memory access.
(gdb) p *SCM2PTR(q)
$26 = {word_0 = 0x304, word_1 = 0x1039c4c20}
What's happening here is that
I really enjoy the unspecified order of evaluation that Scheme has, but
perhaps that's an implementor's perspective. So I thought that when we
went to convert to an intermediate form that names all intermediary
values like ANF or CPS, that we'd be able to preserve this; but it turns
out that it's
Hello,
I always thought that at some point we'd want a form that explicitly didn't
fix the order of evaluation. Maybe the for it is now. I imagine something
like this:
(foo (a (b)) (c (d))) =>
(unspecified-order ((A (let ((B (b))) (a B))
(C (let ((D (d))) (c D
(
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Gaylard writes:
> Inspection of the remqueue function shows
> that the logic is not correct when removing the last entry in the queue.
Indeed, thanks very much for debugging this!
I pushed a fix to stable-2.0.
> However it now hangs somewhere else (which may be an unrelated pr
Hi :)
On Mon 17 Jun 2013 15:49, Noah Lavine writes:
> Unspecified-order looks exactly like `let', except that it can evaluate
> its clauses in any order before evaluating its body.
So it's exactly like `let', then? ;)
> I think we could make CSE work with this, don't you think?
Oh sure. It w
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
> So it's exactly like `let', then? ;)
>
Oh, yes, you're right. :-)
>
> > I think we could make CSE work with this, don't you think?
>
> Oh sure. It works with let already. It's just not as effective.
> > To translate this into CP
On 18 June 2013 06:14, Andy Wingo wrote:
> If I understand correctly, I think this is going in the wrong
> abstractive direction -- CPS is nice because it's a limpid medium for
> program transformations that also corresponds neatly to runtime. With
> this sort of thing we'd be moving farther away
