[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: byte-code optimizations
From: |
Paul Pogonyshev |
Subject: |
Re: byte-code optimizations |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:31:59 -0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.3 |
> 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."
While I do agree with this, it's generally better to avoid changing
stabilized behaviour only for optimization reasons. Otherwise,
really-difficult-to-debug bugs can jump out of nowhere.
Paul
- 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, 2004/09/21
- Re: byte-code optimizations,
Paul Pogonyshev <=
- 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