Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!elroy!ucla-cs!pierce
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Question with binding
Summary: Chez Scheme has flexible optimization levels
Message-ID: <23115@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 19 Apr 89 02:36:52 GMT
References: <26688@polya.Stanford.EDU> <56700003@silver>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: pierce@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Distribution: na
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 16

In article <56700003@silver> mitchemt@silver.bacs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>As far as I know, (define + (lambda (x y) (* x y))) will work just fine under
>Chez Scheme. I agree that it would be hard to write a compiler for this type
>of code. I don't think it will bomb but you might get some weird results. Hope
>this is of some help.
>  Terrence Mitchem, Indiana University.

The way Chez Scheme handles this problem is to have 4 different
optimization levels, numbered 0-3.  At levels 0 and 1, the lower
levels, this definition will work just fine.  At levels 2 and 3
redefining a primitive such as + will not be allowed. This has
worked well for me. Why force one approach or the other on a 
user when both needs can be accomodated? 

-- Brad Pierce, UCLA