[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: LOAD-TIME-EVAL (Version 8)
- To: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: LOAD-TIME-EVAL (Version 8)
- From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 17:41:45 MST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore), Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>, Wed, 25 Jan 89 17:54:12 CST
> But "within a single call to EVAL" would have to mean lexically within the
> form being evaluated (you don't want to re-do LOAD-TIME-VALUEs within
> evaluated functions called by the current form), so interpreted functions
> would need to be thought of as closures over the cache. But you wouldn't
> want that overhead on every interpreted function, so we're right back to
> having the evaluator need to do a pre-pass on functions.
Gack -- that's certainly not what I had in mind. Cacheing ought to be
an option, not a requirement. The current proposal explicitly says that
LOAD-TIME-VALUE expressions in the interpreter may be evaluated multiple
times, and I'm very much opposed to changing this.
If you don't want the overhead on an interpreted function, you should
COMPILE it. Given that interpreted code already runs something like
20 times slower than compiled, I can't take seriously arguments for
forcing cacheing of LOAD-TIME-VALUE expressions in interpreted
functions based on the performance considerations you cite.