[plt-scheme] cost of closure?

On 5/31/07, Robby Findler <robby at cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/07, YC <yinso.chen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Am I inferring correctly that you are saying closure consumes a
> constant
> > > factor of memory over struct, but otherwise doesn't necessarily hold
> onto
> > > unnecessarily references from the stack?
>
> > Right.


Thanks.

> > Any other way besides closure & struct to create opaque compound value
> > > objects?
>
> > The way we think of it: all compound values are structs at one level
> > or another. You just may or may not have access to the inspector to
> > see the fields. So ... no. :)


Out of curiosity - does PLT scheme actually use struct as the fundamental
compound type, i.e. implement closure/etc on top of struct.  I like structs
but have problem with 1) making it anonymous and 2) that make-struct-type is
cumbersome if define-struct along doesn't cut it.

Thanks,
yinso
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20070531/3292cbd8/attachment.html>