[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] coops

From: Felix
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:07:36 +0100 (CET)

From: address@hidden
Subject: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 03:39:45 +0100

> Hi,
> i am playing around with coops and have some problems with <list> and
> <pair>. I know that are fixed in version 1.1 but i can download 1.0
> only via chicken-install.

The version you install is 1.1, but it is incorrectly specified in
coops.setup. I have fixed this and tagged a new version (1.2).
Thanks for reporting this.

> The next point is that the performance is not as good as expected. Are
> there any tricks? For example i have a method 'satisfy' with 2
> parameters. The first is specialized for some classes, the second is
> always a list.
> (define-methode (satisfy (p <link-p>) (e #t)) ...)
> (define-methode (satisfy (p <type-p>) (e #t)) ...)
> Is it better to specialize the second argument too or switch the order
> of arguments?

You have to try it out. Performance largely depends on how well the
internal method-call cache can be utilized. Repeated calls of the same
method will cache the result of method-lookup, otherwise the method
has to be looked up (and parameter classes be matched), which is a
costly process. Do you use high optimization switches?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]