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: Declaim and proclaim Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:14:16 -0400 Message-ID: References: <53555822.3080007@dancol.org> <535730F0.9070503@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1398258950 3223 80.91.229.3 (23 Apr 2014 13:15:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 23 15:15:43 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 1Wcx1Z-0006vI-LA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:15:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60902 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wcx1Z-0003He-5z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:15:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50670) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wcx0P-00013U-FU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:14:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wcx0G-0001xC-Oo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:14:29 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:53602) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wcx0G-0001wt-Gs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:14:20 -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 s3NDEGIJ019455; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:14:17 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 48E576014C; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:14:16 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <535730F0.9070503@dancol.org> (Daniel Colascione's message of "Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:18:08 -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 RV4920=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9378 : core <4920> : inlines <760> : streams <1165401> : uri <1738520> 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:171607 Archived-At: >>> That test was there in cl-check-type. The test doesn't make sense to me >>> either. We should drop it in both places if we drop it in cl-the. >> Great, let's drop it then. Thanks. > On second thought, I'm not sure it's so simple. First of all, nobody in > the tree actually changes the default speed or safety settings, AFAICT. Could you explain what this discussion has to do with the removal of the cl--compiling-file calls? > sure we should change how it works now without having a discussion of > how we want this whole system to work. It's not terribly important, tho. Given the simplicity of the implementation techniques we use, this CL optimization infrastructure is over-engineered. > Should we make cl--optimize-speed and cl--optimize-safety buffer-local? > And shouldn't we be setting the default values to 3 and 0, respectively, > during initial Emacs compilation when we haven't been given configured > with --enable-checking? What would that change? > Also, we could make cl-locally do something useful by having it bind > cl--optimize-speed and cl--optimize-safety, then fully macroexpand its body. Not worth the trouble, methinks. Stefan