[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:05:10 +0200
> Actually, that reminds me - another thing I like having around in a
> language is persistence. Chicken has "serialize" and "deserialize",
> which are fine, but which can't flatten procedures. How could we get
> to a point where procedures could be externalized like any other
> datatype? I bet it's a long way off :-)
Well, one *could* extend the closure with extra data, that is, with
some description that defines how to reconstruct the code.
This would mean either: construct a closure tree (like `eval' is
currently doing), or generate native code (Ugh).
- [Chicken-users] serialization,