From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: named-let Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:50:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87im86kub6.fsf@logand.com> <86zh1g62zx.fsf@163.com> <875z4385yd.fsf@logand.com> Reply-To: Andrea Corallo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30581"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Zhu Zihao , Tomas Hlavaty , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 12 20:18:14 2021 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 1kzPBF-0007rQ-T0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:18:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46768 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kzPBE-00035U-Tn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:18:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kzOky-00083H-13 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:51:04 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:53837) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kzOks-0003qI-Bt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:51:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mab (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 10CIoiv5012150; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:50:44 GMT In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:07:24 -0500") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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:263022 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> As a side note I think we could have full TCO in Emacs, but at the cost >> of a relatively invasive patch and a some (probably small but hard >> to quantify a priori) performance regression. Not sure it is >> sufficiently important to justify that. > > That's the question, indeed. > Also, I have the impression that "full TCO" could be difficult if we > consider the mixed case where a compiled function calls an interpreted > function and vice-versa. I might be wrong but I think should be possible to harmonize both sides with not much problems (other than the mentioned enormous codebase diff). But anyway, I've no time to prove I'm right or wrong on this :/ Andrea