On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Sam TH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> This would ban ahead-of-time compilers, right? >> >> No - though perhaps "lazy expansion of lambdas" is misleading. >> >> "When compiling a module, that means deferring lambda expansion >> until the end of the module - or until it is needed for a syntax >> expansion (though that gets a little tricky)." >> >> In more detail (but still some hand-waving): > > [snip explanation] > > Well, that makes more sense. I think that prevents the implementation > strategy used by some REPLs, which is to run the compiler on each form > entered at the REPL. Other than that, I'd want to have a lot more > experience with this before recommending it for a standard, but it > seems potentially feasible.
Thinking about this a little more, it seems like it would run into some trouble with `local-expand' [1,2]. You might be able to just say that we delay the expansion of `lambda' bodies 'as long as possible', but that that point it seems like we're not gaining very much. [1] http://docs.plt-scheme.org/reference/stxtrans.html#(def._((quote._~23~25kernel)._local-expand)) [2] http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/scheme2007-ctf.pdf , Sections 3.4 and 4 -- sam th [email protected] _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
