-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/08/2012 09:30 AM, leppie wrote: >> Can someone explain the thinking of the R6RS committee here? > > I could never understand that either. > > How will inlining and beta-reduction apply if the procedure is not > applied, and simply being a reference to something? > > The closest notion I can see is that, for some reason, the code could > possibly be transformed into: > > (eqv? (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) (lambda (x) (+ x 1))) > > which IMO, is a wasted optimization in the case where the procedure is > not applied.
In general, I'd think that inlining the creation of objects in general is a bad idea - you certainly couldn't do that with cons, and unless somebody can think of some benefit in doing so, I don't see it as worth adding a special case to do it just for lambdas. > > leppie > ABS - -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+o51UACgkQRgz/WHNxCGpyqwCfRztHj18XorCXRw3L+E4RgdyF CQ8An1NE+v6+AB2ayqDYZou7ofJ2aVze =/0Ip -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
