Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!defmacro.utah.edu!moore
From: moore%defmacro.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Tim Moore)
Subject: Re: Fixing the order of evaluation. Minimizing the unexpected.
Date: 5 Apr 91 09:36:03 MST
Message-ID: <1991Apr5.093603.20685@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
References: <9104041629.AA19876@schizo> <JAFFER.91Apr5002735@chamarti.ai.mit.edu>

In article <JAFFER.91Apr5002735@chamarti.ai.mit.edu> jaffer@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Aubrey Jaffer) writes:
>gjc and others suggest fixing the order of evaluation.  If this order
>is fixed Scheme will lose the ability to be easily run on multiple
>processors.  This will confine scheme to the dustbin of history.
>

As was pointed out earlier, the unspecified order of evaluation has
almost no effect, pro or con, on running Scheme on multi-processors.
Arguments can be evaluated in any order, but evaluation cannot be
interleaved. 

-- 
Tim Moore                    moore@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,hplabs}!utah-cs!moore
"Ah, youth. Ah, statute of limitations."
		-John Waters
