[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question
From: |
Drake Wilson |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:48:57 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Quoth Shawn Rutledge <address@hidden>, on 2008-10-24 10:20:12 -0700:
> Right that's the usual pattern. But I'm trying to call it remotely.
>
> A client REPL opens an SSH connection to a server and starts a server
> REPL. Each of them evaluates what the other sends. So if the server
> sends
> (let ([v (make-thing)])
> ...)
> and the client evaluates it, then later the server wants to ask the
> client to do any operation on the previously-created v, how can the
> client now access the variable v, which exists only in that
> environment created by "let"?
If you mean "later" as in "after the let", the v doesn't exist anymore.
If you mean "later" as in "within the let", the overall expression hasn't
been evaluated yet and so there's no disparity.
I suspect what you're looking for is something to the effect of thunking
references between the sides, now; something that would let you do
(let ((v (client-do (make-thing))))
;; Now v contains a token to an object on the other side.
(client-resolve (client-apply 'some-function v)))
;; ... where client-resolve requests the representation of an object
;; given a token.
You're also going to have to deal with lifetime-tracking issues in that
case. In general this doesn't sound like a situation for syntactic let;
you sound like you want something semantically similar but nonidentical.
---> Drake Wilson
- [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Peter Bex, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Drake Wilson, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question,
Drake Wilson <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Drake Wilson, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, John Cowan, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, John Cowan, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Elf, 2008/10/28
Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Elf, 2008/10/27