On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:20:57 -0400, Antonio Vieiro
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "The effect of any concurrent evaluation (of lambda arguments, of let
> bindings, of 'map', etc.) must be consistent with some sequential order
> of evaluation".
The R6RS already allows this and already enforces this. There is no need
to explicitly mention an optimization (parallelizing) in a standard so
long as the standard makes that optimization possible. If we explicitely
mentioned all the ways in which Scheme code could be optimized and made
explicit that its behavior must be the same as code that doens't perform
the optimization, don't you think we're being a little redundant and will
quickly run into problems? Nothing about concurrency warrants this extra
wording that doesn't actually add any new liberties or restrictions.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
