Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > On Wed 14 Dec 2011 00:45, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > >> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: >> >>> On Wed 14 Dec 2011 00:00, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> I haven't really been contributing to this thread, so please take my >>>> opinion with a grain of salt. But it does appear to me that we should >>>> support capturing a lexical environment, as Mark and David describe. >>>> >>>> So I took a look at ice-9/eval.scm.... >>> >>> There is a compiler too. >> >> Lilypond calls eval on the # and $ scraps (though I don't know whether >> that would be ice-9 or not). Actually, I have no idea what else it >> could call. > > It could call `compile', in 2.0. It probably doesn't want to though. > > It sounds a bit academic, but this is not a moot point: as things are > now, one can replace any call to `eval' with `compile'.
When would that be an advantage? I could imagine compiling a loop makes sense, but for most things evaluated once, the effort of compiling would not appear to offset the savings. -- David Kastrup
