From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Inline Functions (was: Eureka! Lexical bindings can be guaranteed!) Date: 2000/03/10 Message-ID: <3161640508185948@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 595421960 References: <8a2naf$e4v$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38C4EE83.AF3BDA64@pindar.com> <8a2t3p$hpv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8a32uj$m10$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8a351o$nff$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38C618C5.F0DC4A8C@simplex.nl> <8a6d94$j2s$1@news.campuscwix.net> <38C806F8.4924@synquiry.com> <3161625123385591@naggum.no> <952640664257@NewsSIEVE.cs.bonn.edu> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 952651750 16759 195.0.192.66 (10 Mar 2000 01:29:10 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: 10 Mar 2000 01:29:10 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Coby Beck | What are the hazards of inlining functions? 1 version disparity upon redefinition 2 reduced accuracy in reporting errors in the debugger 3 code bloat #:Erik