Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot Andy Wingo (29 Sep 2011 08:39 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot John Cowan (29 Sep 2011 15:44 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot Andy Wingo (29 Sep 2011 16:13 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot Aaron W. Hsu (29 Sep 2011 16:20 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot Andre van Tonder (29 Sep 2011 16:30 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot Per Bothner (29 Sep 2011 16:33 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot Andy Wingo (29 Sep 2011 17:15 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 Andre van Tonder (29 Sep 2011 16:26 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 Alaric Snell-Pym (30 Sep 2011 08:36 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 Andre van Tonder (30 Sep 2011 12:51 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 Alaric Snell-Pym (30 Sep 2011 12:53 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 xacc.ide@gmail.com (30 Sep 2011 14:27 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 xacc.ide@gmail.com (30 Sep 2011 15:16 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 Alaric Snell-Pym (30 Sep 2011 15:21 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 xacc.ide@gmail.com (30 Sep 2011 15:36 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 Alaric Snell-Pym (30 Sep 2011 13:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot - 281 Alaric Snell-Pym (30 Sep 2011 13:14 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] Current tickets for the 5th ballot Andy Wingo 29 Sep 2011 16:12 UTC

On Thu 29 Sep 2011 17:43, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> Andy Wingo scripsit:
>
>> > #281 Make non-readable objects self-quoting in EVAL
>>
>> Unless I misunderstand, this effectively requires that `eval' is an
>> interpreter and not a compiler.  Is that your intention?
>
> Not at all.  It simply means that if you pass EVAL a list of the form
> (#<procedure +> 1 2), it is treated as if it were of the form
> ('#<procedure +> 1 2).  Guile currently accepts the latter but not the
> former.

The issue is not what Guile currently supports; it is about
implementation strategies.  Currently it is valid to implement `eval' in
terms of `compile'.  `compile' requires the ability to serialize objects
to data, then to run that data on some machine, native or virtual.
Scheme has not heretofore required serializability for arbitrary
objects.

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports