Message -
From: Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu
To: J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu
Cc: dev dev@racket-lang.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:56:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Experiments with closure conversion
I think I don't yet understand
: dev dev@racket-lang.org, J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:54:58 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Experiments with closure conversion
Sorry --- I don't understand what you mean by lightweight closures use
the same representation.
If you
GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Experiments with closure conversion
Sorry --- I don't understand what you mean by lightweight closures use
the same representation.
If you convert a `lambda' so that it doesn't capture any variables ---
perhaps because you moved formerly
I have a control-flow analysis of a subset of Racket that is similar to R4RS
Scheme (only with immutability in the right places). In fact, I have many - in
order to compare different analyses' effectiveness and precision, I have a
series of post-hoc analyses and program transformations I want
I think I don't yet understand the question.
Are you wondering about what happens to performance of a Racket program
when you convert the program's source before giving it to Racket? And
you wonder specifically about performing lightweight closure conversion
and how Racket will treat the
21, 2012 12:56:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Experiments with closure conversion
I think I don't yet understand the question.
Are you wondering about what happens to performance of a Racket program
when you convert the program's source before giving it to Racket
6 matches
Mail list logo
