[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it? |
Date: |
Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:02:26 -0700 (MST) |
_I_ want it because I want to be able to use let-binding freely, without
the overhead of dynamic binding (it's not horribly large, but it does
exist, and for code that must be very fast, it can make a difference).
If it is just a matter of efficiency, then the question is,
how much more efficient does it make Emacs Lisp to do this?
Have you measured it?
It also gives the compiler greater latitude to do optimizations that are
currently impossible because a binding _might_ escape (even though every
human programmer knows it won't, or at least shouldn't).
I don't think it is worth while working on optimization in the Emacs
Lisp compiler. It could be an unlimited time sink, drawing effort
away from features that benefit the user into something users will
hardly notice.
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, (continued)
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/09
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/12/09
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/10
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/10
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Per Abrahamsen, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/12
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Per Abrahamsen, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/12
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?,
Richard Stallman <=
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Miles Bader, 2001/12/09