From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andreas Rottmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: define-inlinable Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:11:55 +0200 Message-ID: <8762qkwi8k.fsf@vir.lan> References: <87wrjglvsq.fsf@gmx.at> <1301766148-20242-1-git-send-email-a.rottmann@gmx.at> <1301766148-20242-4-git-send-email-a.rottmann@gmx.at> <87pqp1zh9s.fsf@gmx.at> <874o6btuuf.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <878vvngj9m.fsf@gmx.at> <87pqoz2f3a.fsf@gnu.org> <87mxjwk15q.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302571883 27566 80.91.229.12 (12 Apr 2011 01:31:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 12 03:31:12 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from [140.186.70.17] (helo=lists.gnu.org) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9SRj-0003Zf-2r for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:31:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39206 helo=lists2.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9SRi-0007wf-SD for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:31:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59013) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9SR8-0003qb-Ns for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:30:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9PL6-0004d1-8k for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:12:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:35080) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9PL5-0004cb-Q6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:12:08 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2011 22:12:04 -0000 Original-Received: from 83-215-154-5.hage.dyn.salzburg-online.at (EHLO nathot.lan) [83.215.154.5] by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 12 Apr 2011 00:12:04 +0200 X-Authenticated: #3102804 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18TWztdI4MTf5fAGIjGb5QY6RjhIkjLOvc2RNiPgk Fra1SIaIr3dxF+ Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nathot.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320E33A68F; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:12:01 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from nathot.lan ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nathot.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AZoLLbDvk2me; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:11:57 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from vir (vir.lan [192.168.3.10]) by nathot.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A66E3A685; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:11:57 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by vir (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1EF9FBD733; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:11:56 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Andy Wingo's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:05:01 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 213.165.64.22 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: no host name found for IP address 140.186.70.17 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:12214 Archived-At: Andy Wingo writes: > Heya :) > > On Mon 11 Apr 2011 22:01, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >>> I don't know if this is important, as R6RS users probably have lots of >>> other carnage to deal with, but it is strictly an ABI break. >> >> Well well, they=E2=80=99ll need to recompile. My feeling is that it=E2= =80=99s >> acceptable, but I don=E2=80=99t have a strong opinion. > > In this case it probably is, but we don't really know what users there > are. But let's please keep this general issue in mind in the future. > Agreed. I'm reluctant to using macros as a performance hack (e.g., define-inlinable) -- it just feels wrong, but sometimes performance numbers are seductive... Regards, Rotty --=20 Andreas Rottmann --