|
From: | Stefan Israelsson Tampe |
Subject: | Re: Redo Safe Variables, New take |
Date: | Thu, 2 May 2013 17:15:40 +0200 |
On 30 April 2013 06:15, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <address@hidden> wrote:I had gotten the impression from your earlier emails that
> Hi All,
>
> As I told you in an earlier mail I'm back cleaning up and reworking
> guile-log and
> refreshing the memory of the inner details of that code base enabled me to
> rewrite
> the spec for redo safe variables considerable. I think that it is much
> cleaner now and
> should be worthy of a good discussion.
>
> WDYT?
redo-safe-variables was really about having a category of variable
that has its /binding/ captured as part of the continuation, rather
than have the environments captured; because each invocation of that
continuation shares those same environments and may mutate them.
This seemed like a simple, fairly orthogonal extension to the
language, but what you are proposing seems much more complicated. It
may be useful to arbitrarily delimit what the continuation captures,
but even if that is a good idea I don't think I understand the API.
Later on it starts to sound like MVCC.
Have I misunderstood your motivation, or your implementation?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |