Peter Bex <peter....@xs4all.nl> writes: > Very clever! I've tested and pushed this.
Cool, thank you very much! > Are you actually using promises so much that you're running into > performance issues with them, or was this just for fun? I ran into memory leaks when trying to implement the lazy-seq egg based on promises. And IIRC that was due to references that were kept in the delay thunk's closure and thus weren't garbage collected. The record-based implementation I came up with instead is what inspired me to check whether the same could be applied to core. I'm now evaluating whether using this promise implementation actually works for lazy-seq and whether it yields any performance benefits. One drawback is that it needs to support multi values whereas my hand-rolled version in lazy-seq doesn't. I can post a follow-up here once I've tried it if you're interested. Moritz _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
