From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A prototype for a binding based approach to proper namespaces Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 09:41:35 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="130810"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: AquaMail/1.24.0-1585 (build: 102400006) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 09 18:43:46 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jXSZm-000Xvu-KT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 18:43:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34418 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXSZk-00008v-Td for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 12:43:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55266) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXSXk-0006O2-L4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 12:41:40 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:57416) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXSXi-0001RJ-6X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 12:41:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Date:CC:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=+xMnnmOSwXAisH4pr1Fc/GHe0O3ZlwAjXpSZxOoCpes=; b=cdkG5ZVqA5rnhAFF5w5w1pFzFD eZw2B6AXDdZ0A426rXXNBbIMHrXqcHq+JvJ1/YqpYvADxxmALtTHXtWgW/ROl9pdeogmpSX/v0k7O oWxbGfMSoHPdbdFF1avR5QCda7vb0NBv766bpQCCFQt4WQglN3ylut+4nvm0oG13N92KU0Ol2cwEI D2UgFEMEHqQe+3H4CPH7NLGaTf8BV3k2wpS3p41dnxSPZ+Q3MUVZANPE9VNHG2wdICZt6OOLD50qi sv8x3xOYDiqZNDHlJozht5f94G7pWG/srXmv5MTuWLitdGVHDAdI8nw3wtVMhLYjjLy142FwX3FSd zJFqNCvQ==; Original-Received: from [172.58.46.170] (helo=[100.198.211.198]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jXSXg-0000Qt-FY; Sat, 09 May 2020 09:41:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3; envelope-from=dancol@dancol.org; helo=dancol.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: 12 X-Spam_score: 1.2 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam_report: (1.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:249505 Archived-At: On May 9, 2020 9:39:18 AM Andrea Corallo wrote: > Daniel Colascione writes: > >>> I agree with you in principle, but the fact that a pointer chase more is >>> negative for performance in a measurable way or not for this case should >>> be verified with a measure >> >> Death by a thousand cuts is something that happens to lots of real >> world programs. I don't want to introduce unnecessary memory >> indirections or branches where simple and efficient alternatives are >> known to exist and where they're just as good as the inefficient >> option. > > Exactly because we are talking of real world programs I think it should > be measured :) > > I'll maybe have a run using the prototype (so it will prove some > usefulness) and report. No, not in this case. This is something that might appear to be fine in isolated tests or in modules that don't get a lot of use, but the more people use this thing, the worse it gets, right? I don't see any reason to *prefer* this approach to the zero cost one. Let's not be slow for no benefit. > > -- > akrl@sdf.org