At Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:44:27 -0400, Ryan Newton wrote: > By the way, is it on the horizon to have whole-program R6RS compiles that > will verify that no mutable pairs are used and select the immutable ones?
Not that I see. We considered implementing an R6RS-like language without mutable pairs, which would interoperate more smoothly with Racket. Demand never seemed large enough to get started on that. If such a language existed, a tool that could convert a set of R6RS libraries to the R6RS-like language. > Finally, mutable pairs are also cited as reason not to implement > deforestation in Scheme compilers. I notice that R6 is > mindful<http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs-Z-H-14.html#node_idx_642>to > ban both list mutation in map's (irrespective of pairs mutability) and > leave evaluation order unspecified. Does that mean we get deforestation > now? I'm not sure. Racket does specify the order of evaluation for `map' (or `for/list'), so that might be an obstacle for Racket's `map'. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
