Matthew Flatt wrote at 08/08/2011 11:05 AM:
I've implemented all of this (not yet pushed). It's more complex than I
originally hoped, and I'm not yet sure it's worthwhile. Longer term,
maybe it's better to work on ways for macros to more directly
communicate with the optimizer.
Thanks,
[Moved to the dev list.]
At Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:25:00 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Feature request... I'd *really* like to see compile-time checking of
keyword arguments whenever that is possible.
If compiler knows what procedure will be called, and the procedure uses
keyword args in the
At Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:12:36 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
Another possibility is to redirect the `set!' on `f' to the
underlying `proc', and somehow make the optimized call to `core'
happen only when `proc' is never mutated. Due to the order of macro
expansion, whether `f' is mutated
Ah, right. Rats.
Robby
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:12:36 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
Another possibility is to redirect the `set!' on `f' to the
underlying `proc', and somehow make the optimized call to `core'
happen
4 matches
Mail list logo
