[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "simplifications"
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: "simplifications" |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:59:05 -0500 |
Personally, I think that we should make the byte compiler optimize the
unnecessary binding away. But until that is the case, please don't
gratuitously replace (car (cdr ...)) with (cadr ...).
Maybe we could improve the handling of defsubst
to recognize that that binding is unnecessary.
To handle simple cases like this, it is enough to scan
the bytecode instructions and see that they don't call
any functions or refer to that variable.
I think the place to do this is in `byte-compile-unfold-lambda'.
Is someone interested?
- Re: "simplifications", (continued)
Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
Re: "simplifications", Miles Bader, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", David Kastrup, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", David Kastrup, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", David Kastrup, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
Re: "simplifications",
Richard Stallman <=