Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:39 AM 11/12/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>>Simon Cozens wrote:
>> > You save one level of indirection, at a large complexity
>> > cost.
>>
>>A lot less complexity than a JIT though. 100% portable
>>code too.
>
> It's got the same sort of issue that a lot of other inlining's got, but...
>
> In those cases where it's feasable (because, for example, a method or
> package is marked as immutable) I don't see it as a problem. I don't
> think it'll buy us a huge amount, but for code we translate to C and
> feed to a compiler I can see it getting a not-insignificant win.
>
> Don't expect it in the first rev, but smack me if I propose something
> that'll stop it.
Of course, if someone can implement it *now* then you'll have a
situation where if you do something that breaks it then the tests will
tell you immediately. But anyone competent to implement something like
this is probably competent to implement something more important.
Hmm...
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
