Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:50 AM, <will@x> wrote:

The following proposal combines all the advantages of both the
R5RS and R6RS semantics, while avoiding all the disadvantages
mentioned by John Cowan for either R5RS or R6RS semantics.
This proposal would also enable boxing/unboxing optimizations
that John Cowan didn't mention because they aren't feasible
with either the R5RS or R6RS semantics.

[...]

Although this breaks a lot of my (and existing IEEE Scheme)

code, I'm not opposed to this compromise in principle, if it

actually improves the situation.

However, we had discussed this before and dismissed it.

Perhaps we were missing something.

As I see it, once a procedure escapes, the existence of any

semantics in the language which can discriminate the procedure

location requires it to be boxed.  This is true whether the

discriminator is eq? or eqv?.

So it doesn't seem this allows the desired unboxing

optimization.

-- 

Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports