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: [RFC] caar/cadr/cdar/cddr Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:05:11 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4FFEFA98.3060509@yandex.ru> <4FFF00F9.4070806@cs.ucla.edu> <4FFF0CE4.2020706@yandex.ru> <13DC109D-F477-4E36-B9A8-5EF16644C839@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1342181157 2495 80.91.229.3 (13 Jul 2012 12:05:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Paul Eggert , Dmitry Antipov , Emacs development discussions To: Samuel Bronson Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 13 14:05:56 2012 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 1Sped8-0005ad-5d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:05:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50599 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sped7-0004uM-DX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:05:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Speco-0004tC-So for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:05:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Specf-0005pB-Fr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:05:34 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:36591) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Specf-0005nv-CF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:05:25 -0400 Original-Received: from fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q6DC5CLS018789; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:05:13 -0400 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id A87B5AE17C; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:05:11 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <13DC109D-F477-4E36-B9A8-5EF16644C839@gmail.com> (Samuel Bronson's message of "Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:27:06 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4277=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <4277> : streams <783874> : uri <1164245> 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:151589 Archived-At: > Surely the bytecode compiler can be made to do better with this; Why bother: you can get the same efficient result by switching to lexical-binding without any extra byte-compiler hacking. AFAIC, the only code worth optimizing for is the one using lexical-binding. Of course, if it also speeds up dynamically scoped code, that's even better. Stefan