On Fri 20 May 2011 21:44, John Cowan <[email protected]> writes:
> Andy Wingo scripsit: > >> There is also the approach of using no type at all and returning the >> values on the stack. > > Indeed, though that can lead to very strange behavior. For example, > if the identifier "map" is known to be bound to its R5RS definition, a > compiler can reject (map (foo)) as erroneous, but under a "return on the > stack" implementation, (foo) might return both the function and the list > to map. I think it was Henry Baker who pointed this out. You are confusing the stack with the continuation of the evaluation of a procedure's argument. I was referring to the technique described here: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/mrvs.pdf Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
