[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?
From: |
Marcin Borkowski |
Subject: |
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way? |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:44:46 +0200 |
Hi all,
I love how I inadvertently start these huge threads... Really, I didn't
mean it!
On 2015-04-18, at 03:06, Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:
> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com>
> writes:
>
>> You may want to compare:
>>
>> (defun normalize-boolean (obj)
>> (if obj t))
>> (disassemble (byte-compile 'normalize-boolean))
>> byte code:
>> args: (obj)
>> 0 varref obj
>> 1 goto-if-nil-else-pop 1
>> 4 constant t
>> 5:1 return
>>
>> with:
>>
>> (defun g (x) (not (not x)))
>> byte code:
>> args: (x)
>> 0 varref x
>> 1 not
>> 2 not
>> 3 return
>>
>> (disassemble (byte-compile 'f))
Fascinating. Really, I'm serious.
>
> ... you mean 'g?
>
> Are you saying (not (not x)) generates more efficient
> byte-code? I hate to break it to you, but the
> Commodore 64 demo era is long gone :)
I love to break it to you, but the C64 demoscene seems to be alive and
kicking.
Best,
--
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University
- Why is booleanp defined this way?, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo, 2015/04/17
- Message not available
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?,
Marcin Borkowski <=
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Stefan Nobis, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/19
RE: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Drew Adams, 2015/04/17
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Tassilo Horn, 2015/04/18