[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:45:06 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> define-inline in particular will produce decent code.
>
> I don't think performance is much of a concern here, and would favor
> defining them as functions instead; that's simpler and allows them to be
> used in more contexts when code is written using a functional style.
I'm not advocating the use of `define-inline` for this case, but just
want to clarify that `define-inline` does define a *function*, just like
`defsubst` does.
Stefan
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, (continued)
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2019/07/23
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, Yuri Khan, 2019/07/23
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, Juri Linkov, 2019/07/25
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, Noam Postavsky, 2019/07/23
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, Stefan Monnier, 2019/07/23
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, Mattias EngdegÄrd, 2019/07/23
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/07/23
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree, Paul Eggert, 2019/07/23
- Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree,
Stefan Monnier <=