CLIM mail archive


reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)

    Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 19:31 EST

    > 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

The compiler should do this work.  In fact, Genera does this for many
of the functions in CL.  I presume that other Lisp implementations do
as well.  But CL is a big language, and the list of what the compiler
"should" do is endless.


Main Index | Thread Index