[r6rs-discuss] comment and vote (if allowed)

From: Lynn Winebarger <owinebar>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:50:54 -0400

On 8/24/07, Elf <elf at ephemeral.net> wrote:
>
> * allow implementations to generate efficient code, without requiring
> programmers to use implementation-specific operators or declarations.
>
> again, i believe that this requirement is in error. what constitutes
> 'efficient' code is dependent on the system's intended use. a number-crunching
> app doesn't necessarily care about string handling. additionally, a
> one-size-fits-all 'efficiency' definition destroys the usefulness of individual
> implementations.

     "Allow" is not the same as "Require". One of the things Steele
demonstrated with Scheme was that requiring support for higher order
functions could still allow generation of efficient code. Mandating
proper tail recursion, on the other hand, is a requirement for
generating efficient code. I think that part of previous scheme
reports was a great idea.

Lynn
Received on Fri Aug 24 2007 - 09:50:54 UTC