[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Always using let*
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Always using let* |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:31:35 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) |
> But if you have side-effect free expressions, (or at least, provably
> independent ones), then they could be evaluated in parallel despite the
> left-to-right rule.
Same holds for let* or pretty much anything else for that matter: if
some analysis can prove that it can be done in parallel, well, then
unsurprisingly it can be performed in parallel. But it's not the
"parallel binding" semantics of `let' that lets you do that.
While some details of language semantics can make analysis of code
easier for that (e.g. the non-aliasing constraints on arguments in
Fortran), I've never heard of anyone being able to use the
parallel-binding of "let" for that.
So, I stand by my claim: it's an Urban Legend.
Stefan
- Re: Always using let*, (continued)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Always using let*, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/14
- Re: Always using let*, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2014/09/14
- Re: Always using let*,
Stefan Monnier <=
- RE: Always using let*, Drew Adams, 2014/09/15
- Re: Always using let*, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/15
- Message not available
- Re: Always using let*, Emanuel Berg, 2014/09/15
- Re: Always using let*, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2014/09/15
- Re: Always using let*, Barry Margolin, 2014/09/15