Per Abrahamsen <abraham(a)dina.kvl.dk> writes:
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
> Perhaps for you, but is it acceptable to Gnus author, and to Gnus
> users?
That's their problem. I wouldn't hesitate using it in my code. If
the users are unhappy with the speed, they can upgrade.
First, they can't -- that's the whole point. The "C-based" lexical
let will only be available in the future.
Second, I would consider it rude to tell an enthusiast FSF Emacs user
to "upgrade" to XEmacs. Perhaps he does not want to use XEmacs for
other reasons.
> Your guess is as good as anyone's. I agree with Glynn and
others in
> the opinion that most of the temporary variable bindings are in fact
> established by function calls.
But I don't care about *most* of the code, only the few places in the
code where the user tends to wait on Emacs, instead of Emacs waiting
on the user.
It is very questionable whether these places would be made faster by
the sole introduction of `lexical-let'. But, as I said, your guess is
just as good as mine.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
"A Real Programmer's code can awe with its fiendish brilliance, even
as its crockishness appalls."