From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why are there two dolist? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:51:31 +0900 Message-ID: <87d472m0b0.fsf@catnip.gol.com> References: <87r5vim0yt.fsf@catnip.gol.com> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1250031116 7962 80.91.229.12 (11 Aug 2009 22:51:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel devel To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 12 00:51:49 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mb0C5-0008Vi-91 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:51:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42111 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mb0C3-0003lf-Hm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:51:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mb0Bx-0003lL-QS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:51:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mb0Bt-0003hm-D1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:51:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45546 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mb0Bt-0003hd-2j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:51:37 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp11.dentaku.gol.com ([203.216.5.73]:37165) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mb0Bq-0005sn-PI; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:51:35 -0400 Original-Received: from 218.231.177.167.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([218.231.177.167] helo=catnip.gol.com) by smtp11.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) id 1Mb0Bo-00037o-JU; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:51:32 +0900 Original-Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EA503DF93; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:51:31 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:42:01 +0200") Original-Lines: 24 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV GOL (outbound) X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:114105 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman writes: >> Most people will never see the cl-macs version; those who _should_ see >> it will, because they'll have done (require 'cl) first; since the >> cl-macs version supports the basic subr.el usage, it's OK if some code >> that doesn't need the extra features ends up se > > Does not this open to subtle bugs? I think it's such a simple macro (at least the basic subr.el version is) that this isn't such a big problem. > Would it not be better to move the cl-macs.el version to subr.el? I haven't looked at the code (recently), but because elisp doesn't natively support lexical blocks, I suspect the cl-macs version either (1) adds unnecessary runtime overhead, or (2) drags in lots of big and crufty compile-time analysis code (cl.el has lots of this) to optimize away the block when not used. -miles -- Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.