[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
- From: Alan Watson <alan@x>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 20:14:25 -0500
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@x>, William D Clinger <will@x>, scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYNjPUsTP5GsP0HSNQE3TULbR5KF6_qSWHK=uzx6gJLMcw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <6396504.2289381370360900956.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <15670151.2289411370361012620.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <CAMMPzYMqQ6ePLLyUPfZmjO=8o9c-91SAM1vjqcenu8tK0K4Tug@mail.gmail.com> <20130605000026.GC25928@mercury.ccil.org> <CAMMPzYNjPUsTP5GsP0HSNQE3TULbR5KF6_qSWHK=uzx6gJLMcw@mail.gmail.com>
> Using addresses wouldn't work, generate-unique-value
> would have to increment a global counter (which need
> not be unique to this location). Though if the counter
> ever overflows into a bignum all optimization is lost.
Sure, just
(define (generate-unique-value) (cons #t #t))
or something similar.
Regards,
Alan
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports