[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: optimizers

I agree completely with RMS, and i would like to add two points.
For one, it is a complete loss that to utilize such a feature
one must use multiple values, ESPECIALLY in Maclisp.  I might feel
differently if the support were small and efficient, but the nested
macro expansions produced, and the quantity of code which produces
them, is just too much for me to be able to use when others will be
using my code.  (The interpreter support for this, based on the existing
Maclisp implementation, can be done in less than 200. words of binary
program space;  this involves lap-coded FSUBRs.  The compile-time
support (ie macro-definitions) takes somewhere around 500 words.)
  The second point, which is more of a suggestion, is that the DEFxxx
should take a name for the particular optimization being defined, so
that it can be appropriately clobbered if it gets redefined.