[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Having our cake and eating it too
- To: dick at MIT-AI
- Subject: Having our cake and eating it too
- From: Jon L White <JONL at MIT-MC>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 81 18:20:00 GMT
- Cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 19 April 1981 13:20-EST
Date: 18 April 1981 15:02-EST
From: Richard C. Waters <DICK at MIT-AI>
more of a question than a bug, when calls to status and sstatus
are compiled, do they still have to parse the command name even
when this is known at compile time.
Yes, I'm afraid this is so -- QUUX started a system of multiple entries
to STATUS functions some years ago, so that the complr could just PUSHJ P,
to the right place, but we never finished this. The question was one of
achieving a very small efficiency factor, versus a modestly large investment
of development time; we preferred to develop other things, and at this point
in time, its hard to justify much more development-for-the-sake-of-speed on the
A similar but more interesting question, re EXTENDS. . . When this
is the case everything could compile very effeciently, because you
could find out at compile time what all of the methods were and
everything, and save a great deal of searching around. . . .
This point is certainly worth considering -- indeed SMALLTALK does this.
There is very little needed in the COMPLR in the form of "understanding"
declarations to make it happen. THis problem will occur in NIL too,
although the feeling of many persons is that the FLAVOR system has
such a small, albeit constant, time overhead that most persons won't care
to bother with declarations.