John Cowan wrote: > w...@ccs.neu.edu scripsit: > > > Maybe I'm not sufficiently clever, but I don't see how that could work. > > If h is the name of a known local procedure that's referenced only in > > call position, then the compiler shouldn't have to allocate a closure > > *or* a tag for it. (Allocating unique tags is almost as expensive as > > allocating a closure.) > > I'm probably missing something here, but if h doesn't need a closure, > what's wrong with using the code address as a unique tag?
Because that would violate both R5RS and R6RS semantics. Both the R5RS and R6RS insist that procedures that are eqv? behave the same. Distinct procedures that share the same code are unlikely to behave the same. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
