[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mutating C binding arguments?
From: |
Lars J. Aas |
Subject: |
Re: mutating C binding arguments? |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:25:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 09:02:13PM +0200, Michael Livshin wrote:
: "Lars J. Aas" <address@hidden> writes:
:
: > : gh_call2( gh_lookup("values"), arg1, arg2 );
: >
: > While we're on the subject; am I understanding it correctly if I believe
: > this call will never return?
:
: why? `values' is just a procedure that builds and returns a data
: structure. the only sensible thing to do with the result is to return
: it, of course. and the caller must (per r5rs) expect multiple values.
OK, I was confused on when the consumer was invoked. I thought calling
values would get the consumer called indirectly then and there, but I
now figure the consumer is tail-called by "call-with-values" on the value
returned by the producer, which has to be the value returned by "values"?
Now it makes sense that looking up values only once should suffice too :)
Thanks,
Lars J
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, (continued)
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/03
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?,
Lars J. Aas <=
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/05