reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)

• To: chyde@BBN.COM
• Subject: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: miller@cs.rochester.edu
• Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 19:31:46 -0500
• Cc: jmorrill@BBN.COM, SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com, clim@BBN.COM
• In-Reply-To: <199312210028.TAA15310@cayuga.cs.rochester.edu> (chyde@BBN.COM)

> From: chyde@BBN.COM
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 19:07:16 EST
> Sender: chyde@BBN.COM


> yeah. y'know, that is one of the things that hacks me off about CL in
> general, is that so many functions have all these wonderfully
> order-independent keywords that cost a bunch of time.

> I think that there should be two versions of functions: the
> order-dependent and the order-IN-dependent. the order-dependent
> doesn't even use keywords, has a fixed set or req'd args. the other
> one is actualy a macro that expands into the dependent function, and
> fills in missing args. that way, the pain occurs only at compile time.

> the programmer is free to use either one, and knows the penalty for
> doing so (and by compiling it out, it's virtually non-existant).

>  -- clint


The real question is, why doesn't the compiler do this ANYWAY, without
making the programmer do all that work? Then when the options/keywords
are known at compile-time, you get the "fast" order-dependant no options
version.

• reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: Scott McKay <SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
• reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: David Gadbois <gadbois@cs.utexas.edu>

• Prev: Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• Next: Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Jan-93 to 31-May-94)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Jan-93 to 31-May-94)