Some comments inlined. 2009/9/14 Aaron W. Hsu <[email protected]>
> 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 R6RS *does* explicitly specify how the arguments to a procedure call are to be evaluated in a concurrent environment. But R6RS does *not* specify how let bindings are to be evaluated concurrently, nor does it explain how call/cc is expected to behave in a concurrent environment, for instance. > standard so long as the standard makes that optimization possible. If we > explicitely mentioned all the ways in which Scheme code That's exactly the key idea: make concurrency possible (but not mandatory). Cheers, Antonio
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
