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)
|
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