[gambit-list] Fatal crash

Derek Peschel dpeschel at eskimo.com
Tue Apr 22 01:51:23 EDT 2008


On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:14:26PM -0400, Marc Feeley wrote:
> And if you are wondering how the ##car procedure is implemented, then  
> it goes roughly like this:

Why have a ##car Scheme procedure at all, if the calls to ##car in
situations like your other example are inlined by the compiler?  The only
reason I can think of is "so calls to ##car work from procedures
without extended bindings".  If that's the reason, are those calls inlined
also?  That is, does the extended-bindings declaration cause optimization
across procedures?

About the ## prefix in general, I thought of another question.  Which
procedures' interfaces (argument number and types) are guaranteed not to
change, and which have no guarantee?  Obviously standard procedures are
constrained by the standard, but there's the rest of the public namespace
to consider, the entire ## namespace, and other namespaces (though in
practice I doubt people have to worry about them).

-- Derek



More information about the Gambit-list mailing list