Re: CPS thoughts

[Noah Lavine]

Hello,

Thanks for the review.

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Andy Wingo <address@hidden> wrote:

Some first thoughts on the CPS language, just after having looked at
(language cps):

 * Overall looking really good.

Thanks! You may choose to retract that after you see the other files, of course. :-)

 

  * License blocks are missing.

 * Toplevel comments should be prefixed by ";;; " (three semicolons).

 * Overview could go in the module commentary section.

These three should be simple to fix.

 

 * Missing distinction between original names and unique names.

Yes, I agree. I think it even reuses original names sometimes, which is not good. I should just rename everything.

 

 * Missing source information.

The issue here is not that it's hard to pass source information through to the compiler, but that I haven't figured out what to do with it when I have it. I imagine that your ELF work has solved this problem.

 

  * Missing procedure properties.

Can you explain what you mean? Does the compiler need to handle procedure properties specially?

 

  * Why is there no "let" that can bind functions?  You don't always want
   to set up a recursive binding environment.

 * Lambdas are missing lambda* and case-lambda support.

With these two, it's just that I haven't implemented it yet. I'll try to do it quickly, although I don't know how much time I'll have to work on it.

 

What do you think about rebasing?  wip-rtl-may-2013 is a good target
until wip-rtl goes into master.

Sounds great! I think the compiler stuff is fairly separate from the RTL stuff - when I've rebased it occasionally, it hasn't been a problem.

 

Best,
Noah