output streams vs output ports Taylor Campbell (18 Jun 2005 00:26 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (18 Jun 2005 07:57 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Taylor Campbell (18 Jun 2005 15:17 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (18 Jun 2005 18:51 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (18 Jun 2005 21:06 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (19 Jun 2005 09:09 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (19 Jun 2005 09:41 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (20 Jun 2005 05:41 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (20 Jun 2005 09:16 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (21 Jun 2005 07:43 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (21 Jun 2005 08:08 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (27 Jun 2005 05:45 UTC)

Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber 19 Jun 2005 09:09 UTC

Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@lava.net> writes:

> Srfi-18 and srfi-21 require the conforming implementations to take
> care of serializing simultaneous access to a port.  If we have
> separate port/stream layers, the locking can be handled by the
> port layer.  This frees up the stream layers from taking care
> of expensive locking, which will be a performance gain for e.g.
> translated streams.

Could you clarify what would be expensive about it?  Getting the
synchronization right is sure difficult to program, but I don't think
there's a necessarily large performance hit.  (Specifically, Scheme 48
does it all entirely without locking.)

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla