[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:53:13 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 |
On 07/12/2012 09:26 AM, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> These are widely used
How widely? I've always been leery about those
functions, myself. Since this is a performance
improvement, how much does performance improve?
Quite possibly they're a win in the C implementation,
but I'm not sure they're worth adding bytecodes for.
We might want to save bytecodes for something more
important.
Assuming they're needed, I vote for a clean
implementation of Fcaar etc. rather than tricky
ones involving loops. Especially since the tricky
loops are wrong and will infinite-loop in some
cases.
- [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Dmitry Antipov, 2012/07/12
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Tom Tromey, 2012/07/12
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Tom Tromey, 2012/07/12
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Dmitry Antipov, 2012/07/12
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Samuel Bronson, 2012/07/12
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/12
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Stefan Monnier, 2012/07/12
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Samuel Bronson, 2012/07/12
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Stefan Monnier, 2012/07/13
- Re: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr, Alp Aker, 2012/07/12