>> 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.
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]