On 5/30/05, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't want to have this for every `lambda': among other things
> the optimizer wouldn't be able to do a god enough job on this
> kind of code (it wouldn't be able to associate the lambda with the
> binding name, and so a lot of opportunities for optimization would
> be lost). So, whille I agree with the usefulness of such a thing, I must
> decline for purely technical reasons... ;-)
Are you saying that extended procedures cannot be optimized in general?
BTW, I was trying to see if I could redefine "lambda" with tricks like
this:
(define-macro (original-lambda formals . body)
`(lambda ,formals ,@body))
(define-macro (introspective-lambda formals . body)
`(extend-procedure
(original-lambda ,formals ,@body) '((formals . ,formals))))
(define-macro lambda introspective-lambda)
But it seems I am entering in an infinite loop somewhat ...
Michele
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
