[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
- From: Alan Watson <alan@x>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 20:19:46 -0500
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@x>, William D Clinger <will@x>, scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYNXSGEAvVqOmcm9kNDckve9DuPZXOLsnz6hQEC=9JJqng@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <6396504.2289381370360900956.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <15670151.2289411370361012620.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <CAMMPzYMqQ6ePLLyUPfZmjO=8o9c-91SAM1vjqcenu8tK0K4Tug@mail.gmail.com> <20130605000026.GC25928@mercury.ccil.org> <CAMMPzYNjPUsTP5GsP0HSNQE3TULbR5KF6_qSWHK=uzx6gJLMcw@mail.gmail.com> <EB15379D-2B25-4E92-B48E-FB40A1F52E0E@alan-watson.org> <CAMMPzYNXSGEAvVqOmcm9kNDckve9DuPZXOLsnz6hQEC=9JJqng@mail.gmail.com>
Then I fundamentally don't understand the optimization, since instead of consing a single procedure we end up consing two boxes.
Alan
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports