|procedures and environments debray@CS.Arizona.EDU (1999-11-04)|
|Re: procedures and environments email@example.com (1999-11-05)|
|Re: procedures and environments firstname.lastname@example.org (Max Hailperin) (1999-11-05)|
|Re: procedures and environments email@example.com (David L Moore) (1999-11-05)|
|Re: procedures and environments firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-11-05)|
|Re: procedures and environments email@example.com (1999-11-09)|
|Re: procedures and environments firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-11-09)|
|From:||email@example.com (George Neuner)|
|Date:||5 Nov 1999 01:36:59 -0500|
|Organization:||Dynamic ReSolutions, Inc.|
On 4 Nov 1999 00:36:11 -0500, debray@CS.Arizona.EDU (Saumya K. Debray)
> ..., a call would transfer control to the callee, which could either
> allocate an environment, or---if it chose to not allocate an
> environment for itself---execute in the caller's environment.
>(The need for this comes up in some code compression work we're doing,
>where we'd like to take identical code fragments and abstract them
>into procedures. The problem is that the procedures so created need
>to execute in their caller's environment. This feels like something
>someone must have looked at...)
As far as "language level" features, most Scheme implementations allow
construction of arbitrary environments as first class objects which
can be passed around as desired. I haven't seen the latest language
specs so I don't know if the features have been standardized - as of
R4RS they had not been.
- What language are you working in [or thinking in]?
- What are you referring to when you say "environment":
lexical scope? instance values? name bindings?
- Why do you need to execute "in" the caller's environment"
rather than copy or share values with it?
Dynamic Resolutions, Inc.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.