Type inferencing [ was Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: possible dotimes enhancement]

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings, and thanks!  OK, I'll look into getting compiler-macros
working as its a current ANSI bug in any case.  BTW, there appears to
have been a start in cmpeval.lsp.

BTW, did you have any comments on my last suggestion for dotimes?  I
feel that is safer than the do* code I submitted, as it would really
require a read only scan of the loop body.

In general, I suppose we're touching on type inferencing.  If my tests
so far extend to other areas, it can be a *major* performance win.  Of
course the real place to do this is in the compiler, and its probably
not the highest priority.  Are there any thoughts/suggestions as to
how to proceed on this front generically?

Take care,


"Paul F. Dietz" <address@hidden> writes:

> Camm Maguire wrote:
> 
> > Paul, does this mean I can do something like
> > aref -> si::arefold
> > (defmacro aref (a &rest sub &aux i new-sub)   (dolist (i sub)
> >     (push `(the fixnum ,i) new-sub))
> >   `(arefold ,a ,@new-sub))
> > ???
> 
> Yes, although it would have to be a compiler macro, since
> the user can do #'aref.
> 
> (The i aux parameter is redundant, btw, and you need to reverse
> new-sub.)
> 
>       Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gcl-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcl-devel
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah