From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Modules: definition of emacs_value Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:04:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: <56D4D127.5020505@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457053482 15698 80.91.229.3 (4 Mar 2016 01:04:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 01:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philipp Stephani Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 04 02:04:33 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1abeAQ-00023A-B4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 02:04:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38144 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1abeAP-00039N-NT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:04:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34896) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1abeAM-000391-UE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:04:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1abeAH-0006hP-Us for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:04:26 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:58741) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1abeAH-0006hI-Pj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:04:21 -0500 Original-Received: from fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.DIT.UMontreal.CA (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id u2414alC011882; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:04:36 -0500 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 9739EAE804; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:04:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Philipp Stephani's message of "Wed, 02 Mar 2016 18:14:48 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5599=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <5599> : inlines <4435> : streams <1597242> : uri <2157402> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:200900 Archived-At: > Is this just speculation, or do you have actual benchmarks? Neither. Just like Elisp's slowness is rarely seen in practice, I don't expect this API's slowness to be seen in practice. Instead, it will change the kind of module that can be realistically defined (i.e. only those where the cost of the API itself is not a problem). The main problem for me is that this cost comes with only hypothetical benefits. Stefan