Re: Compiler Branch

[Andy Wingo]

Heya Noah,

A brief note:

On Sun 08 Jan 2012 22:15, Noah Lavine <address@hidden> writes:

> I do think there's a problem with plain CPS, though - it forces you to
> pick an order for the evaluation of function arguments. I would like
> to use CPS with some sort of parallel-call operator, so we can leave
> the order undefined (maybe at some point an optimizer will want to
> adjust the order). What do you think?
>
> I also noticed that at the end of that blog post you said you were
> considering ANF versus CPS for Guile (I assume you'd already decided
> that you didn't like Tree-IL). Does this mean you decided on CPS?

I guess I'd like to see if it's a good idea or not.  We definitely do
need a parallel binding operator.  I haven't already decided on it but I
am interested.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/