2012/10/16 David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> > > Yep I think there are quite a few things like this. But I don't think we > need an optimization pass for this paticular case (and I'm not saying > that's not a good idea - see below). Hopefully we can a direct patch for > this issue around top level deftypes/records. >
Certainly, such a simple optimization (omitting var reads in a statement context) could live in the emitter. The next stumbling block to a smaller clojurescript, however, is the global-hierarchy var, which doesn't get removed by the closure compiler. To shake that var, some closed world optimization could be utilized. I'd be happy to work on that, but I need compilation units in order to do that. Another use case for compilation units I can think of from the top of my head are constant pools. Definitely needs a Confluence page. I know several people are interested in > this. I think it would be pretty sweet to provide common optimizations out > of the box. > Seems like I can't edit Confluence. Could somebody elevate my privileges? Is it OK if I create a page "Compilation Units"? kind regards -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
