From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Minor simplification in byte-opt.el Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:24:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35463"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 27 16:25:28 2020 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 1k044G-00095b-7s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:25:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49328 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k044F-0007Gi-7W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:25:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49930) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k043k-0006qt-GQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:24:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:54850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k043i-0008VV-1j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:24:55 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6AC7C10032F; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B56E210029E; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:24:50 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1595859890; bh=8mCN073yr3QTHqR+tOP2G8XGXqK/+3M5YPPqnKQdWnI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kmqzFDH4OpZ3A0tfYipZ9NNfC/aSpniv4xHZoY/iZB1s/wIh2rDN8GArlN5QGvRM8 8H6B4BtPgzWHvwzof/okKOuY2wtwN3UaD1N7AKRNg0zQuP38L530LXDEiug7iNw01S LEK2YXDh6/fr91LXREHy6cN3rKzsNHT0mNT1PIfFq9Vm2XBby+Cdsn+cmZtnvQHtle 7gvExdtGuEtcoNtqnKOsZd+Cc9/hrV4tgNQOJPQqEnuoJdcXejcozHD1WfhKFIkZi4 YBNf5MEh2a6CuIaifvRR/YXUeEDdATHJCTmFgnsrbkEniu8Aj2xBDjCaO1AP/9+Sz/ 9QebyfhngA7NA== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [104.247.229.155]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BACA1204A7; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:24:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd=22's?= message of "Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:38:55 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/27 10:10:49 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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:253288 Archived-At: >> Could someone look over the patch below to confirm it's safe? > Thank you, looks decent to me. Good that you spotted the 1+/1-, I forgot about those. Thanks. >> Also, as a result of this, there is only one call to >> `byte-optimize-form-code-walker` left, in `byte-optimize-form`, so maybe >> the two functions could be merged, tho it's probably not worth the trouble. > Maybe -- there seems to be little to gain from integrating them other than > the elimination of the function call. Exactly :-( > By the way, what about this little improvement? Looks good [ tho IMO we shouldn't support `closure` there. ] Stefan