> One argument > for including them in Thing One is that compilers would have an > opportunity to optimize them--and since they're so fundamental the > benefit of such optimization could be substantial. ... > One is homogeneous vectors; the other is growable vectors.
We have very different ideas about "fundamental." Both of your candidates are efficiency hacks; from an expressiveness standpoint, "growable vector" is just another name for "list." I expect people who are very concerned with efficiency to be WG2 customers. WG1 customers are going to be more interested in expressiveness, simplicity, and clarity. I know we can't require anything in WG1 that isn't also in WG2, but an example of something I'd really like to see in WG1 implementations that will be anathema to optimizing compiler writers is first class environments. /That/ would be removing restrictions (of access to behind-the-scenes data). _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
