[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: no constants please

To: lord@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: no constants please
From: Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:38:00 -0800 (PST)
Cc: kelsey@xxxxxxx, tb@xxxxxxxxxx, srfi-50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200401050131.RAA21346@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (message from Tom Lord on Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:31:31 -0800 (PST))
References: <E1AdHCH-0003c0-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200401050131.RAA21346@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


    > From: Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>

    > 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

References:
- Re: no constants please
  - From: Richard Kelsey
- Re: no constants please
  - From: Tom Lord

Prev by Date: Re: no constants please
Next by Date: Re: no constants please
Previous by thread: Re: no constants please
Next by thread: Re: no constants please
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread