On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Liam Healy <l...@healy.washington.dc.us> wrote: > However, this comment got me to thinking that there are a lot of > (unnecessary) round trips through parse-type/unparse-type. It seems to me > that they could be eliminated or reduced. Perhaps as a design philosophy, > we should only have parsed types internally, and then we won't need > unparse-type at all? Changing this would be a lot of work, I realize.
What makes you say there are a lot round-trips through parse- and unparse-type? Grepping the source we code, we can find two usages of unparse-type: (1) the make-load-form method for foreign-type and (2) some foreign-array-type code. (2) shouldn't be there and it's got a FIXME nearby. (1) is why unparse-type was introduced. Instances of foreign-type can end up in fasls after various macros and compiler macros kick in and so we need a way to serialize them. Cheers, -- Luís Oliveira http://r42.eu/~luis/ _______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
