Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)

• To: clim@BBN.COM, chyde@BBN.COM, pnorvig@norvig.east.sun.com
• Subject: Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: clarisse@iexist.att.com
• Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 09:35:52 CST

I agree with your previous point.
>
> (Unfortunately, since CLtL2 the user is not allowed to write compiler macros
> for built-in functions.)
> 
Can you clarify this one for me. I'm simply missing it reading CLtL2 pp.205-207.
Do you have an example of a compiler macro for a built-in function in CLtL1
that is not allowed in CLtL2. My impression was that I could always shadow
built-in functions define a compiler macro that does the argument optimization
and call the built-in from its original package. I agree, if a build-in function
is poor (not efficient) there is not much else I can do but to redefine it.

Olivier Clarisse
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Peter Norvig				Email: Peter.Norvig@East.Sun.COM
> Sun Microsystems Laboratories		Tel: (508) 442-0508
> Two Elizabeth Drive			Fax: (508) 250-5067
> Chelmsford MA 01824-4195 USA		(Sun Internal mail stop: UCHL03-207)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 

• Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: Steve Haflich <smh@franz.com>
• Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: Scott McKay <SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
• Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: Scott McKay <SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>

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