This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Making Guile slower?
Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:
> Greg Harvey <Greg.Harvey@thezone.net> writes:
>
> > It is something that needs to be considered in every case, but I
> > really don't think that this particular case could possibly effect
> ^^^^^
>
> Men have erred on simpler `thinks'.
Did you not read what lead me to `think' this? I'll state it again:
given the rarity of places in the code where nimp is not used in close
proximity to the other predicate, as well as the fact that the nimp
test should not be compiled to code any more complex than 2 simple
instructions, on a value that's about to be used anyway, there is no
way it's going to cause a significant performance degradation. We have
wasted far more processor time gabbing about it. In any case, since
the original `scare' post totally ignored the discussion, Greg is
planning to use non-checking (sloppy) versions in the places where
nimp is not used now.
--
Greg