From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: #'sizeof operator?
Date: 1999/01/11
Message-ID: <3125074065418253@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 431359624
References: <wkogo7nqsk.fsf@mit.edu> <77b6gv$liv$1@Godzilla.cs.nwu.edu> <wklnjaoq2e.fsf@mit.edu> <3125044969307401@naggum.no> <369A0E56.62BD92DC@harlequin.co.uk>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Nick Levine <nick@harlequin.co.uk>
| Ugh, looks like hard work.

  sure.  SIZE-OF should be hard work.  we don't want to encourage people to
  do simple stuff like (time (make-string n)) for increasing values of N
  when what they are doing is entirely wrong to begin with.  optimizing bad
  behavior is not a good idea.  moreover, I'm sure he's happier trusting
  machine addresses than the output from the TIME macro.  incidentally,
  TIME reports 32 other bytes too many in Allegro CL unless tuned with

(setq excl::time-other-base 32)

  (thanks to Duane Rettig <duane@franz.com> for this tidbit.)

#:Erik