From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: return Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:46:08 -0500 Message-ID: <87r5dyfxmn.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87hbeu7l84.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87bp52ae9g.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291405584 13310 80.91.229.12 (3 Dec 2010 19:46:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 19:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 03 20:46:20 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PObaE-0003K4-KS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:46:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41921 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PObaE-000500-8E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:46:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46814 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1POba9-0004zs-LK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:46:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1POba8-0002GN-H5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:46:13 -0500 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.146]:49184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1POba7-0002FU-1z; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:46:11 -0500 Original-Received: from furball (dhcp128036014088.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.88]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB3Jk90O015052 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:46:09 -0500 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DED8B160675; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:46:08 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87bp52ae9g.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (Miles Bader's message of "Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:43:23 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.146 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.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:133351 Archived-At: Miles Bader writes: > Chong Yidong writes: >>> OK, I'll try harder in the future not to suggest Emacs-level features >>> (that seeming every other languages and environments have) >> >> As Tassilo Horn explained, catch/throw does exactly what you wanted. > > I presume he wants something without the overhead tho... You mean the performance overhead from adding an extra internal_catch? I doubt there's a free lunch here; adding a "return" or "return-from" mechanism would also add overhead, and that overhead would apply to every single funcall. Still, it's a worthwhile experiment to implement "return"/"return-from" and see how big the performance impact is.