[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mutating C binding arguments?
From: |
Michael Livshin |
Subject: |
Re: mutating C binding arguments? |
Date: |
05 Oct 2000 14:47:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (20 Minutes to Nikko) |
"Lars J. Aas" <address@hidden> writes:
> 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"?
yes. although the method you describe is a perfectly reasonable
optimization that a Scheme compiler could perform.
in fact, that's what happens in those compilers that transform code
into CPS (continuation-passing style) -- returns are transformed into
calls.
--
Incrementally extended heuristic algorithms tend inexorably toward the
incomprehensible.
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, (continued)
- 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, 2000/10/05
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?,
Michael Livshin <=