[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.
-Miles
--
My spirit felt washed. With blood. [Eli Shin, on "The Passion of the Christ"]
- byte-code optimizations, Paul Pogonyshev, 2004/09/18
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Stefan, 2004/09/18
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Richard Stallman, 2004/09/19
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Paul Pogonyshev, 2004/09/19
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Richard Stallman, 2004/09/21
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Paul Pogonyshev, 2004/09/21
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/21
- Re: byte-code optimizations,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Paul Pogonyshev, 2004/09/21
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Miles Bader, 2004/09/21
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Paul Pogonyshev, 2004/09/21
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Richard Stallman, 2004/09/22
- Re: byte-code optimizations, Paul Pogonyshev, 2004/09/22
Re: byte-code optimizations, Richard Stallman, 2004/09/18