[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Use of *RSET, and your conjectures
- To: GJC at MIT-MC
- Subject: Use of *RSET, and your conjectures
- From: Jon L White <JONL at MIT-MC>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 81 18:18:00 GMT
- Cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 28 October 1981 13:18-EST
Date: 27 October 1981 19:46-EST
From: George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>
If you think it is reasonable to have factors of 60 difference in
speed with the bit and string primitives depending on *RSET, ...
I never implied anything at all like that -- only the worst case (which
you were carping about) admits such large error-checking time.
VASLAP uses NIBBLE and SET-NIBBLE which are much different (as I told
you in my previous note). There is no reason to run a debugged compiler
in *RSET mode -- only the expansion of user macros and the interpretation
of user code need to be so protected. Thus Interpreters, like MacSYMA
are correct in doing this; but assemblers, like VASLAP, don't run random
code, and when they are fairly well debugged don't need *RSET for their
JONL, the reason all the "NILCOM" stuff you wrote had to be
reimplemented was to gain correctness and reliability.
I disagree with your opinion as to why you re-did some of the semantics
your own way. This is a nasty way of justifying your independent