Aaron W. Hsu Scripsit: > I think we are past this. We should not concern ourselves with hacks > to improve the performance of implementations that do not care about > performance.
Agreed, but shouldn't we care about the efficiency of the most general case? > If performance is important, then use one of the already > useful and good Scheme implementations out there that produce fast > code. If you do not care about speed, feel free to use a naive > implementation, but do not expect it to be fast. Sorry, I don't understand; as the issue is about what r7rs should be, isn't it. > It should be self-evident that "register" style hacks are not good style > or useful in Scheme, and we should not encode them into the standard. Agreed, the issue is: can the standard be defined such that most can have their cake, while not spoiling the other courses of the dinner in the process. > Again, if you care about performance at all, then you should not use > an implementation that does not care about performance. It will not scale. As compliant implementations are dependent on standards is the question at hand; the efficiency of hacks of prior standards don't seem particularly relevant to the discussion, but admittedly I simply don't understand your attempted point. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
