(Previous discussion continued)
Re: Why vectors? Elf 13 Aug 2008 02:20 UTC

Re: Why vectors? Elf 13 Aug 2008 02:20 UTC

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Derick Eddington wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 15:26 -0700, Elf wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Derick Eddington wrote:
>>
>> <lotsa snip>
<lotsalotsasnip>
>
> But isn't one of the main themes of this SRFI that the R6RS's
> record-type-descriptor and parent-rtd are lame because sophisticated
> optimizing compilers don't need them because they can do compile-time
> flow analysis on the run-time variables to figure out optimizations
> (such as what Will has described elsewhere in his criticisms of the R6RS
> records)?  With a system that does not do such flow analysis
> optimization, isn't there a performance concern over record
> constructors, accessors, and mutators?  It's been my impression that
> this SRFI is aimed at state-of-the-art compilers, which I like, because
> I want technological advancement.
>

This is aimed at ERR5RS, not R6.

-elf