"R. Kent Dybvig" <dyb_at_cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> You haven't implemented parameters in terms of your dynamic binding,
> that's how. You've merely presented my own implementation of
> parameterize in terms of dynamic-wind back to me and put in code the
> exact implementation of make-thread-parameter that I described. In
> short, you've done nothing to prove your claim that you could
> implement parameters with your dynamic-binding mechanism plus
> thread-local storage. Do you now admit that this claim is false?
Ermh, I admit I haven't *used* dynamic binding, and only thread-local
storage. When I wrote the original message, I didn't fully understand
your semantics, and wasn't sure whether dynamic binding was required.
(Specifically, I wasn't sure whether a parameter is a thread-local
cell with binding thrown in or a dynamically-bound variable bound to a
thread-local location.) As dynamic binding can be implemented in
terms of `dynamic-wind' anyway, I don't see how this is relevant.
What I'm interested in, however, it whether my implementation is
faithful to your semantics. Is it?
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Wed Feb 21 2007 - 13:10:07 UTC