From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Eureka! Lexical bindings can be guaranteed!
Date: 2000/03/09
Message-ID: <3161625123385591@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 595327311
References: <gat-0603001441540001@milo.jpl.nasa.gov> <8a2naf$e4v$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38C4EE83.AF3BDA64@pindar.com> <8a2t3p$hpv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8a32uj$m10$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8a351o$nff$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38C618C5.F0DC4A8C@simplex.nl> <vcdsny1mshp.fsf@csusza.math.bme.hu> <8a6d94$j2s$1@news.campuscwix.net> <38C806F8.4924@synquiry.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 952636579 14075 195.0.192.66 (9 Mar 2000 21:16:19 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Mar 2000 21:16:19 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Jon S Anthony <jsa@synquiry.com>
| Third, you can always inline those functions where you think the extra
| call overhead might actually make a difference (better to actually check
| this with the (typically good) profilers provided first).

  inlining user functions is frequently a very hazardous business, and some
  implementations do not heed inline declarations for user functions.

| Fourth, if push comes to shove, you could use macros to "compile away"
| these definitions while maintaining the power of their abstraction.

  compiler macros provide the best of both worlds, and can be quite the
  tool to optimize code beyond belief without being force into macro land.

#:Erik