Den 19.02.2010 14:03, skrev Levente Uzonyi: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Henrik Johansen wrote: > > >> Well, ugly was a strong word. >> Reusing less, aka. shorter is a better choice, I guess. >> > I think the difference is 3 lines for the 4 methods. > > >> Cheers, >> Henry >> >> PS. In VisualWorks, the two perform equally. *Wishing for a Cog VM to >> test on* :) >> > There's no inlining VM available ATM (besides SqueakJ, but that can't > run current images) and noone knows when one will be. And even though I > didn't try it, I expect that "inlining by hand" saves time and memory. > No objections here, it's definately faster. >> PPS. For those interested, the alternative, faster version Levente made >> can be found at http://paste.lisp.org/display/93130 >> > Here is a working example (the linked version has a bug): > BlockClosure >> cull: argument1 cull: argument2 > > numArgs = 2 ifTrue: [ ^self value: argument1 value: argument2 ]. > numArgs = 1 ifTrue: [ ^self value: argument1 ]. > ^self value > Ah yes, had forgotten about that. How about:
numArgs > 1 ifTrue: [ ^self value: argument1 value: argument2 ]. numArgs = 1 ifTrue: [ ^self value: argument1 ]. ^self value That way, you get "This block accepts 3 arguments, but was called with 2 arguments" instead of "... was called with 0 arguments" error messages if the block has too many args. > (For #cull:cull:cull: the difference is ~1.7x if the block has 0 or 1 > argument, and ~1.3x if it has 2 arguments) > Then also consider the scale "overhead of 120 ms rather than 320ms for 1 million cull:cull:cull: sends where the block has one arg, compared to a raw value: send (130ms)". ;) Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
