[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:
Alex Shinn scripsit:

> 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?.

Well, it depends what you mean by "boxed".

I was using "boxed" as a shorthand for the optimization
under discussion, in the same way that Will used it.

The point is that because eqv? can still discern the
location, the optimization is not applicable.  More complex
procedure representations do not change this.


Scheme-reports mailing list