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: Benchmarking temporary Lisp objects [Was: Re: [RFC] temporary Lisp_Strings] Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:47:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: <5405BE5D.1090003@yandex.ru> <5405DE8B.4050201@yandex.ru> <5406EC21.4060200@yandex.ru> <5407281C.3090302@cs.ucla.edu> <54073621.2040403@yandex.ru> <540744F5.2010804@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1409766492 16421 80.91.229.3 (3 Sep 2014 17:48:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:48:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dmitry Antipov , Emacs development discussions To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 03 19:48:04 2014 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 1XPEf4-0007ZQ-U5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:48:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46920 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XPEf4-0008BA-J3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:48:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34490) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XPEeu-0008Ay-I0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:47:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XPEen-0000vU-3V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:47:52 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:37098) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XPEem-0000vI-Vc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:47:45 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id s83HlYZY002004; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:47:34 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 636F16308B; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:47:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <540744F5.2010804@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:42:29 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5053=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9378 : core <5053> : inlines <1234> : streams <1280585> : uri <1809933> 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:173993 Archived-At: > Correct. We'd need (1) e.g. to build up a list in a loop, and have the list > survive until function exit. But on further thought this is > probably a dangerous feature, since it'll be too tempting to write unbounded > loops. So let's not do (1). Is (2) actually valid? I mean, are we allowed to refer (via a reference) to a variable that's in a block we already exited? Stefan