[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] need help with hygienic macros
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] need help with hygienic macros |
Date: |
Sun, 12 May 2013 20:03:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 07:36:32PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> Hm, wait... you're not talking about parameterize as in srfi-39 do you?
Yes, I was.
> a) Way too much overhead.
> b) no way: atop of the usually straight-forward evaluation it's sometimes
> subject to delay'ed evaluation... (see my other message to
> chicken-hackers
> about how to make a single `(delay <expr>)` being evaluated as often
> as you want just to discard all but the fastest result (nevertheless
> still incurring all the effort to evaluate those results, which never
> take an effect besides the side-effects; and yes... we are talking
> about the same code here.
I didn't quite understand that example. I guess I'm not thinking too
clearly today!
In any case, you can also cobble your own parameterize-like construction
by communicating through globals, for example. Or you can just use
fluid-let.
Or, if it's possible at all, try to focus your efforts on making
parameterize behave as expected, and to make it work faster.
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://www.more-magic.net
Re: [Chicken-users] need help with hygienic macros, Marco Maggi, 2013/05/12