I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme community. I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and this message should not be confused with the editors' eventual formal response.
Kent Dybvig quoting Mike Sperber: > > (Pure deep binding doesn't have this problem.) > > Deep binding has undesirable overhead of its own, as I'm sure you are > aware, i.e., reference cost proportional to the number of current dynamic > bindings. And deep binding can, of course, be cached on a per-thread basis, which does not, of course, change the worst-case behavior, which I could go on about, but... I think you guys have reached the point where you are arguing over minutia. In particular, the performance issues appear miniscule compared to many other costs that are being introduced by the draft R6RS (e.g. the as-yet-unknown-but-quite-possibly-significant cost of letrec* semantics for internal and library definitions), and the semantic issues appear miniscule considering the fact that Scheme doesn't even have a portable memory model for multi-threaded execution. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
