* Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl [130522 19:44]:
That said, I'm impressed by your results and I think we can surely
consider this an early start for rewriting SRFI-1 :)
On the other hand, if we do decide to rewrite the handling of MV,
this optimization may be a little premature because we don't
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
On May 22 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
We already knew the SRFI implementations shipped with CHICKEN are
extremely inefficient. It's been a plan to rewrite some of them
using faster internal versions for a while. Also, the design of
SRFI-1 and SRFI-13 is pretty
On May 24 2013, John Cowan wrote:
I've always thought that case-lambda should be built into the core,
so that simple tail recursions, like this:
(define foo (case-lambda
((bar baz) ...)
((baz) (foo #f baz
can be rewritten as a varargs function with appropriate internal jumps,
without
Hm. At the moment I'm short of imagination how much overhead these
internal jumps would incur. I can't yet imagine that those would be
for free. Could they?
If I follow John's intention, then it could look something like a switch
statement or a series of elseif branches involving simple
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:40:49PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi,
Hi!
so far I lived in the believe that returning multiple values would be rather
slow under Chicken. This goes back to a remark from Felix, which is several
years old.
I remember having read or heard something of the
On May 20 2013, Arthur Maciel wrote:
Dear Joerg, certainly I'm not the best person to delve into details about
whether this should be done or not. But recalling some requests I've made
to this list in order to change chicken's core for the sake of
'optimizations' I realized that it is better to
Hi,
so far I lived in the believe that returning multiple values would be rather
slow under Chicken. This goes back to a remark from Felix, which is several
years old.
(However I personally love using multiple values mostly for clarity of the
code; but also because I know that some Scheme
