n Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Luís Oliveira <luis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/ > Ah, OK, not round trips, forget what I said about unparse-type. My sense is there's repeated reparsing. If a type was always parsed when read, and the parsed form is stored, would that save some reparsing? So the type slot in foreign-struct-slot would not need to be parsed each time it's used. Thanks, Liam
_______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
