[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: goops and memoization
From: |
Mikael Djurfeldt |
Subject: |
Re: goops and memoization |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:13:04 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) |
Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:
>> Given the gf and specializers, call-next-method works out a list of
>> applicable methods (probably cached) in the same way as for a normal
>> gf application, then it looks through this list for m and applies the
>> method after m to the supplied arguments (formals).
[...]
> Are you saying that you'd want to compute the list of applicable
> methods at every call to (next-method)? That way overhead per call
> would become O(NM) where N is the number of applicable methods and M
> the maximum length of argument lists.
Oops, didn't see that you wrote "probably cached". But if you mean in
the same way as in gf application your suggested approach wouldn't
work because the list of applicable methods is unique per application
arglist signature and gf application also caches per application, not
per method definition.
- goops and memoization, Dirk Herrmann, 2002/11/16
- Re: goops and memoization, Neil Jerram, 2002/11/17
- Re: goops and memoization, Dirk Herrmann, 2002/11/20
- Re: goops and memoization, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2002/11/20
- Re: goops and memoization, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2002/11/20
- Re: goops and memoization, Neil Jerram, 2002/11/21
- Re: goops and memoization, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2002/11/21
- Re: goops and memoization,
Mikael Djurfeldt <=
- Re: goops and memoization, Neil Jerram, 2002/11/24
- Re: goops and memoization, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2002/11/24
- Re: goops and memoization, Neil Jerram, 2002/11/21
- Re: goops and memoization, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2002/11/21
- Re: goops and memoization, Neil Jerram, 2002/11/29
- Re: goops and memoization, Neil Jerram, 2002/11/29
- Re: goops and memoization, Neil Jerram, 2002/11/21
- Re: goops and memoization, Dirk Herrmann, 2002/11/24