"R. Kent Dybvig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You haven't implemented parameters in terms of your dynamic binding, > that's how. You've merely presented my own implementation of > parameterize in terms of dynamic-wind back to me and put in code the > exact implementation of make-thread-parameter that I described. In > short, you've done nothing to prove your claim that you could > implement parameters with your dynamic-binding mechanism plus > thread-local storage. Do you now admit that this claim is false?
Ermh, I admit I haven't *used* dynamic binding, and only thread-local storage. When I wrote the original message, I didn't fully understand your semantics, and wasn't sure whether dynamic binding was required. (Specifically, I wasn't sure whether a parameter is a thread-local cell with binding thrown in or a dynamically-bound variable bound to a thread-local location.) As dynamic binding can be implemented in terms of `dynamic-wind' anyway, I don't see how this is relevant. What I'm interested in, however, it whether my implementation is faithful to your semantics. Is it? -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
