On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 3:52 PM Jens Axel Søgaard <jensa...@soegaard.net> wrote: > > Den man. 1. jun. 2020 kl. 20.53 skrev Christopher Lemmer Webber > <cweb...@dustycloud.org>: > > > I think `case` were more important before `match` arrived. > If you want to see how `case` can be implemented without hash-tables, look at > William D Clinger's paper: > > http://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/07-clinger.pdf > > /Jens Axel
The Racket implementation of case is based on Clinger's paper. And Clinger's approach does, in fact, use hash tables, except that in the Larceny implementation, the hash table fetch is open-coded by case (IIRC), which is not the case in Racket (unless it gets inlined by the compiler in the CS version, I suppose, though I don't know if that's actually possible). - Jon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAKfDxxx1rBXHD%2B9sLH4x6kBJoE2SbKHKp%3D_PGWCZVmqjAO7Qiw%40mail.gmail.com.
