[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations? |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:57:44 -0400 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
These reader speedups sound uncontroversial. However, the question of
what should replace unexec is another matter. I don't want starting
Emacs to take 26 seconds -- and since I don't know what kind of
machine that was, I worry that mine might take twice as long.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, (continued)
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, John Wiegley, 2017/06/20
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, michael schuldt, 2017/06/20
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, Ken Raeburn, 2017/06/21
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/06/21
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, Richard Stallman, 2017/06/21
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, michael schuldt, 2017/06/21
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, John Wiegley, 2017/06/22
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/06/22
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, Ken Raeburn, 2017/06/21
- Re: Should we land Lisp reader optimizations?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/06/21