From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: rm@fabula.de Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Smart variables, dumb variables Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:02:55 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20020815200255.GA9588@www> References: <20020814080715.GA6068@www> <87fzxhteri.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <20020814202831.GA7443@www> <877kittbdr.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <20020814210634.GA7220@www> <871y91taen.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <20020815080643.GA8225@www> <87hehwqdwr.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <20020815172709.GA9304@www> <87y9b7q56j.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1029441011 12191 127.0.0.1 (15 Aug 2002 19:50:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:50:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rm@fabula.de, tomas@fabula.de, guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17fQdD-0003AN-00 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:50:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17fQeB-00083j-00; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:51:07 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17fQdW-00080x-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:50:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17fQdV-00080W-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:50:26 -0400 Original-Received: from www.elogos.de ([212.18.192.92]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17fQdU-00080R-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:50:25 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 5001) id B44C21049BF; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:02:55 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Marius Vollmer Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y9b7q56j.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1100 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1100 On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:43:00PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote: > rm@fabula.de writes: > > > BTW, i'm not really happy with guiles current behavior regarding declaring > > a generic that's allready existing. I'd expect that a (define-generic foo) > > on a function that's allready will be a no-opt. > > Me neither. I recall a discussion about that topic a while ago. I know i felt uneasy back then .... > > (use-modules (oop goops)) > > + > > => # > > (define-method (+ (a ) (b )) (string-append a b)) > > + > > => # > > > > Humpf! I know, this is actually a nice optimisation in this code, but > > it shouldn't be so visible. > > Should it print # from the start? Since it actually _is_ a generic from the start, yes, i think it should. Of course, what i'm really after is a test like 'generic? foo' so that i can write a macro that does what i think guile should do. Make 'foo' a generic iff it's not one allready. > > So, if i understand you right, the compiler would generate code that > > contains _two_ branches, one for the fast numeric code (inlined) and > > one for the normal generic method dispatch? > > Yes. Ah, thank's for the clarification. Ralf > -- > GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel