Re: [Chicken-users] Re: make-parameter, parameterize & SRFI-39

[Elf]

absolutely not.

first, why will it be difficult for you to set up a clean build environment?

second, your patches will flat out not work in default chicken.

    A) why are you sending a patch of the debian rules customised for your
       box?

    B) you are fundamentally changing the representation of parameters.

    C) redundant/unnecessary code - you duplicated a case.

    D) inconsistent naming scheme

    E) there are around 300 occurences of parameters in chicken core.  many
       eggs use large numbers of paramters.  have you tested fully, or even
       partially, the effects of changing structure?  mucking about with
       parameters can and will break just about everything.

third, there has been no consensus and very little discussion regarding 
parameter models yet, so methinks you may be jumping the gun.  if you want
a shared variable between threads, dont make it a parameter.  if you want
a thread-local variable, parametrise it.  i dont see why this requires changing
core structure.

-elf

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> since there where no more responses on my last post to this thread, I
> decided that it might be the best to supply a patch to this list, which
> adds a procedure "make-shared-parameter" extending the existing
> make-parameter in a compatible way.  The attached diff (against svn
> revision 11597) should have no impact on the standard procedure
> make-parameter and the parameterize macro.  However if the parameter is
> a shared parameter, only parameterize will create a local binding for
> that parameter (or the to-be-undocumented interface: call the parameter
> procedure with a second argument).
>
> I'd appreciate if this could make it into the chicken core - otherwise
> it's going to be a pain to set up a clean build environment in my case.
>
> Best regards
>
> /Jörg