Re: Switching to a SRFI-45 compliant force/delay.

[Rob Browning]

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:

> I remember I thought it could go in C in the core nicely enough, or at
> least just extending `force' in the core and leaving the actual
> `eager' to the srfi module perhaps.  I don't remember the details
> though, except it might be nice to lose the mutexes at the same time
> :), for speed and size.
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2005-12/msg00050.html

Wow, I had forgotten that discussion.

In any case, I'm not opposed to putting it in C, and I'm also probably
not opposed to dropping the mutexes and just documenting that if you
want sensible results, you need to add a mutex when appropriate.

However, we'd have to be very careful that the C code has identical
semantics to the srfi-45 code, which is somewhat tricky.  It may well
be that the code you posted back then will work fine, but I haven't
looked it it carefully enough to be able to be sure one way or the
other.

Of course I suppose we might also be able to just switch to the Scheme
code (plus or minus the mutexes) and plan to migrate to C later.

I'd also like to have all the srfi-45 tests automated, though many of
them are of the format '"this" should execute in bounded space'.  I
suppose we could track that via (gc-stats).

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4