Re: Help with adding new setq-based bytecodes

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>]

>> Why is that a problem?
> It'd be annoying (to me), since it would mean searching a small vector
> of constants would be slower than searching a small list of constants.
> Only by a bit, but still.

I think your level of general happiness will be higher when you can stop
worrying about such pesky details.

> No, but at least for vector-memq, I don't think it warrants taking up
> that limited room. Also, I figured that there might be other primitives
> that weren't added as a bytecode previously due to the lack of space
> that could now be added to this secondary table. Possible candidates:

I think a more promising direction would be to speed up the funcall case
enough such that we aren't pressured to add bytecodes for those cases.

>   emacs-lisp/byte-run.el:230:1:Error: Symbol’s value as variable is void: lambda
>
>
> Is there a way to trigger the lisp debugger here?

(setq byte-compile-debug t) is probably what you're looking for
(together with (setq debug-on-error t) which I assume you're already using).

> Do you have any idea what I did wrong?

My crystal ball is not cooperating here, no, sorry.


        Stefan