Re: when GC is permitted Jim Blandy (08 Jan 2004 19:37 UTC)
Re: when GC is permitted Jim Blandy 08 Jan 2004 19:37 UTC
Tom Lord <email@example.com> writes:
> It's a clearer explanation. I'm not sure how useful it is to solve
> the problem. Consider for example that, applying the rule as you've
> stated it, all calls to any function that accepts or returns a Scheme
> value must be made from within a gc-excluding begin/end pair.
Both you and Felix have misunderstood where I was coming from. I
don't support Kelsey's proposed solution as adequately addressing all
the concerns we've raised about SRFI-50. I still don't like it. But
within the priorities he's explained, it does address the problem I
raised. Everything I wrote was simply a response to your assertion
that Kelsey had said something nonsensical --- not an indication that
I think SRFI-50 is peachy as amended.
Similarly with my reply to Felix. I think the overhead of the Minor
API vs. SRFI-50 is acceptable. For heavy Scheme object munging, if
you've got a good compiler, you should write Scheme code. But two
orders of magnitude *is* a significant amount of overhead, and Kelsey
isn't some kind of dope for being concerned about it, given that he
can't escape to Scheme code for speed.