Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
John Cowan
(21 Jan 2021 18:40 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Mark H Weaver
(23 Jan 2021 00:59 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Shiro Kawai
(23 Jan 2021 02:15 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Arthur A. Gleckler
(23 Jan 2021 02:18 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Mark H Weaver
(23 Jan 2021 06:38 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
John Cowan
(26 Jan 2021 03:30 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators Linus Björnstam (26 Jan 2021 07:08 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(26 Jan 2021 07:15 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Linus Björnstam
(26 Jan 2021 16:03 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Arthur A. Gleckler
(08 Apr 2021 15:54 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Linus Björnstam
(11 Apr 2021 15:52 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Apr 2021 16:17 UTC)
|
Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Linus Björnstam
(27 Jan 2021 15:33 UTC)
|
Hi Y'all! I have an efficient, almost done implementation of srfi-121. I believe it lacks generator-unfold, but that is all. make-coroutine-generator is implemented using delimited continuations and runs a lot faster than the one in the reference implementation, with the caveat that it is apparently slightly incompatible: the coroutine generator usage in (srfi 146 hash) yielded the wrong result - despite my version passing all tests. If the maintainers of guile are interested, I could clean this code up and add accumulators and make sure it conforms to the srfi document. I have already spent some time integrating srfi-171 into guile, so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the task. Best regards Linus Björnstam On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, at 04:29, John Cowan wrote: > Note that 121 is withdrawn, so people should implement 158. > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:38 AM Mark H Weaver <xxxxxx@netris.org> wrote: > > Hi Arthur, > > > > "Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> writes: > > > It's not a bad idea for the sample implementation to be as clear as > > > possible at the expense of performance. > > > > I agree that it's desirable for one of the sample implementations to be > > as simple and clear as possible, for the purpose of clarifying the > > specification. > > > > > But it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a supplemental document making > > > recommendations about possible performance improvements, or even a > > > second implementation. > > > > Sounds good. For SRFIs such as 121 and 158, where efficiency is > > important, I think that a second sample implementation tuned for > > performance would be a useful addition. > > > > Regards, > > Mark