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)
|
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:31:31 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> To reiterate -- I'm not convinced, now that I've noted you require GCPROtection of parameters in functions that may cause GC -- that Pika-conventions actually have more overhead. Right. Efficient C code is the reason I prefer the proposed SRFI's mechanisms to a JNI-style indirection. Clarity of code is why I prefer it to a Pika-style syntax. Neither of these decisions is defensible from first principles; it's a judgement call. As I said earlier, in some instances I would prefer to use a JNI-style mechanism. -Richard Kelsey