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

From: Elf <elf>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Lynn Winebarger wrote:

> 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
>

apologies for my being unclear. i was referring only to the 'implementation
responsibilities' and decisions for what should be 'standard library', as well
as such decisions as immutability. i was not trying to say that no efficiency
requirements could be language requirements as well (eg tail recursion).


-elf
Received on Fri Aug 24 2007 - 10:41:08 UTC