[Gcl-devel] Re: Parallelism in traditional lisp syntax

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!

Robert Boyer <address@hidden> writes:

> I suggest that in addition to p-or, p-and, and p-let, you provide p-psetq and
> p-psetf, with the meaning that the forms that produce values are computed in
> parallel in forks that start with the same state as existed at the beginning
> of the p-psetq or p-psetf, and only after the values are computed are the
> assignments done.
> 
> Not sure I've addressed you question.  Just a first shot.
> 

Well, these may be useful, and in any case are easy, but I was hoping
that a wide variety of existing code might be automatically
parallelized under the assumption that it had been correctly written
(as is done with safety set to 0).  Apparently correct and well
defined code using let et. al. need imply nothing about
parallelizability at all.  I.e.

(defvar *a* 1)

(let ((a (setq *a* 2)) (b ((setq *a* 3)))) (values a b))

leaves *a* in a well-defined state.  Sigh.

Take care,

> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah