[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 18:57:03 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:31:59AM -0200, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> > 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.
There's also a point where you have to just say "enough is enough".
-Miles
--
[|nurgle|] ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that
will make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth?
[iddt] nurg, that's the goal
- 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, 2004/09/21
- Re: byte-code optimizations,
Miles Bader <=
- 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