Re: Getting rid of compiled closures?

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> However, for these gprocs it is not actually necessary to use a compiled
> closure.  All information that is needed for their representation would
> fit into a double cell.  The compiled closure implementation comes from
> the time before there was the double cell possibility.  Now, they could
> either be implemented using an applicable smob, or a tc7 code of their
> own.

I think we should do this.  BTW, in a previous mail to Keisuke I
explained how the applicable smob implementation can be optimized wrt
dispatch.  Maybe we should have a look at my suggestion before
implementing your suggested change.  Tell me if I should forward my
suggestion.

> If that was done, the concept of compiled closures could be removed from
> guile.

While I think we should go ahead wrt gprocs as applicable smobs we
should probably think once or twice before removing compiled closures.

Currently, compiled closures is the only way to easily construct
tail-recursive procedures with attached data from the C level.  I
think I've used this in some application.

Maybe we could make a note that they are candidate for removal and
postpone removing them until applicable smobs can be made
tail-recursive?