[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:44:17 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hey,
Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> On Wed 14 Jul 2010 00:09, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> AFAICS the only difference between the two engine is VM_USE_HOOKS.
>> Hooks are only used in (system vm coverage) at this point, so we don’t
>> lose much by disabling them.
>
> Tracing and call-counting profiling too. They will be used when stepping soon.
Right.
To clarify, I’d enable the debug engine for interactive use, but not for
‘-s’, ‘-c’, and when a script is passed as an argument (analogous to
what 1.8 does with the evaluators.)
Tracing and stepping are typically only used interactively, so that’s
OK. Coverage and profiling can start a new VM that suits their needs,
à la ‘with-code-coverage’.
So my impression is that the behavior above would usually have no
drawbacks for the end user, in that it wouldn’t visibly reduce
functionality.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
- SRFI-1 in Scheme, Ludovic Courtès, 2010/07/12
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Andy Wingo, 2010/07/13
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Ludovic Courtès, 2010/07/13
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Andy Wingo, 2010/07/13
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme,
Ludovic Courtès <=
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Andy Wingo, 2010/07/14
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Ludovic Courtès, 2010/07/15
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Andy Wingo, 2010/07/19
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Ludovic Courtès, 2010/07/20
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Andy Wingo, 2010/07/20
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Ludovic Courtès, 2010/07/21
- Re: SRFI-1 in Scheme, Andy Wingo, 2010/07/20