|
From: | Alex Shinn |
Subject: | Re: [Chicken-hackers] extending define-values |
Date: | Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:29:38 +0900 |
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Felix <address@hidden> wrote:
>> "define-values" can not simply expand into a bunch of "defines".Very clever, indeed. Thanks for the link. Rather inefficient,
>> To allow it to be intermixed with "define" in internal definitions,
>> it needs be special cased, due to the use of "call-with-values" (which
>> would "break" the sequence of definitions and treat all following
>> forms of the body as non-definitions). Or not?
>
> No, the call to call-with-values is wrapped in a definition too.
> It really is turtles all the way down.
>
>> BTW, where can I find the portable reference implementation you
>> mentioned?
>
> In Section 7.3 of the ninth draft, pp. 69-70. Unfortunately,
> trac.sacrideo.us seems to be down, but it's normally at
> <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/r7rs-draft-9.pdf>.
> There's a temporary copy at <http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/temp/r7rs-draft-9.pdf>.
but clever.Sorry, what I described was a variation of the same theme.If you do what I described instead of what I coded, and besure to pass a lambda with the same signature (in temp vars)as the define-values to call-with-values then there is zerooverhead.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |