|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 18:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
felix
(04 Jan 2004 19:25 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 20:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(04 Jan 2004 21:13 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(04 Jan 2004 21:43 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 22:59 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 00:50 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 01:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 11:42 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 16:26 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 17:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 18:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(05 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 22:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 07:42 UTC)
|
|
I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 00:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 12:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Shiro Kawai
(05 Jan 2004 12:45 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
bear
(05 Jan 2004 18:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 16:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
bear
(05 Jan 2004 17:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 01:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 07:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 01:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 12:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 17:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(05 Jan 2004 19:03 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 01:37 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(06 Jan 2004 02:15 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(06 Jan 2004 02:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 02:31 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(06 Jan 2004 03:10 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
|
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(06 Jan 2004 04:06 UTC)
|
> From: Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net>
> They are at least awefully close. I wouldn't leap to the conclusion
> that either is cheaper than the other.
Oh, and also: obviously it depends on the underlying Scheme
implementation. For example, while the return of values through a
pointer _may_ add a small cost in SCM-style implementations, the
passing of parameters as pointers may very well _save_ costs with many
other kinds of collector.
-t