Hi Alex, >> Have you measured and/or noticed impact on performance of these >> micro-optimizations? I mean, are they really worth it? > > Very probably not ... it is similar to the situation with 'do' ;-)
When you work on the 64 bit version, you obviously implemented miniPicoLisp "prototype" and now building it in assembler. How and when do you decide what should be implemented in C (or asm) and what in picoLisp? Do you first implement a minimal neccessary core in C/asm and a few things in picoLisp and then later reimplement some picolisp code in C/asm for efficiency reasons? > Still I think it is good to have certain convenience functions that > don't evaluate their arguments. Not having to quote their arguments > makes their use a little shorter and more readable. No big deal. Probably. That makes them convenient for manual typing but not so much for program "transformations" like the original closure example. Cheers, Tomas -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
