[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: byte-code optimizations

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: byte-code optimizations
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:15:27 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 05:05:30PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> What defsubst* does is treat the argument as a kind of "lexically scoped"
> variable, but only in very limited ways.  I.e. the
>      (defsubst* foo (x) (symbol-value x))
>      (foo y) => (symbol-value y)
> whereas our optimization won't be able to do that because it can't assume
> a "somewhat lexically scoped" semantics.

I vote for saying "you're not allowed to treat defsubst argument bindings as
normal dynamic bindings, and if you have tons of code that does, well screw
you, you're probably a crappy programmer anyway."

Maybe a bit more diplomatically.

My spirit felt washed.  With blood.  [Eli Shin, on "The Passion of the Christ"]

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]