Re: &rest and &optional in compiled function arglists
>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
Hrvoje> Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>> >>>> "Hrvoje" ==
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
>>
>> >> LIST_LOOP_3 itself is pretty cheap.
>>
Hrvoje> Hmm, yes. It bothers my esthetic soul to know that every time a
Hrvoje> function is called its arglist is parsed in vain search of
Hrvoje> `&optional', `&rest', and stuff. It somehow doesn't
"feel right".
Hrvoje> Obviously, the yearnings of my soul needn't have anything to with the
Hrvoje> actual speed of the code. :-)
>
> Truly, my soul has also agonized over this question.
>
> The object-oriented way would be to have many different
> compiled-function object types, each of which has a different
> argument-parsing `method'.
Hrvoje> I think that would be over-engineering.
True.
Hrvoje> A Lisp_Object pointer and three integers might work out better
Hrvoje> in this case.
Remember to mark your lisp objects. Remember to benchmark.
Martin