[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: "simplifications"

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: "simplifications"
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:39:33 +0100

On Nov 19, 2007 4:11 PM, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:

> 1 - if you use defsubst* the byte-code will look good.

Nice. Thanks!

> 2 - you can use defstruct to get all that and more.

Yes. It's not my code; it it were, I would be using defstruct. I'm a
big Common Lisp fan.

> 3 - I don't think it's worth the trouble to make the byte-optimizer more
>     complex for such little benefit.  If you want to improve it, use the
>     lexbind branch: it's a much saner starting point.

Isn't that branch supposed to be merged back someday?

> it doesn't account for the case where
> you do
> (defsubst cadr (debug-on-error) (car (cdr debug-on-error)))
> in which case the optimization is not semantics preserving"

And I'n not sure it should... I think I agree with David here: if
you're using defsubst to optimize, you should expect some gotchas.


reply via email to

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