Re: Guile: What's wrong with this?

[Mark H Weaver]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> We could add a compiler option to turn string literals into (string-copy
> FOO).  Perhaps that's the thing to do.

I think this would be fine, as long as the default is _not_ to copy
string literals.  This would help Bruce a great deal with very little
effort on our part, without mucking up the semantics for anyone else.

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> What for?  It would mean that a literal would not be eq? to itself, a
> nightmare for memoization purposes.

I agree that it should not be the default behavior, but I don't see the
harm in allowing users to compile their own code this way.  The
memoization argument is a bit thin.  How often is it useful to memoize
against string arguments using eq? as the equality predicate?  Remember,
this would only for be for code that explicitly changed this compilation
option.

     Best,
      Mark