On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:04:43 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> To take optimal advantage of the pre-existing optimization for repeated
>> filters we could split the application of different types of stringifiers.
>>
>> The resulting difference in order of evaluation is not observable by
>>
> To take optimal advantage of the pre-existing optimization for repeated
> filters we could split the application of different types of stringifiers.
>
> The resulting difference in order of evaluation is not observable by
> conventional means since all reference type share the same object
>
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:44:33 GMT, Jim Laskey wrote:
>> To take optimal advantage of the pre-existing optimization for repeated
>> filters we could split the application of different types of stringifiers.
>>
>> The resulting difference in order of evaluation is not observable by
>>
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:20:37 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> To take optimal advantage of the pre-existing optimization for repeated
> filters we could split the application of different types of stringifiers.
>
> The resulting difference in order of evaluation is not observable by
> conventional
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 13:42:11 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> Looking at the code in MethodHandles::filterArguments, and this optimization.
> It seems that for multiple filters we could potentially always generate just
> a single new lambda form if we wanted, not just for repeated filters.
>
> It
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:20:37 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> To take optimal advantage of the pre-existing optimization for repeated
> filters we could split the application of different types of stringifiers.
>
> The resulting difference in order of evaluation is not observable by
> conventional
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 12:11:30 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
>> To take optimal advantage of the pre-existing optimization for repeated
>> filters we could split the application of different types of stringifiers.
>>
>> The resulting difference in order of evaluation is not observable by
>>
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:20:37 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> To take optimal advantage of the pre-existing optimization for repeated
> filters we could split the application of different types of stringifiers.
>
> The resulting difference in order of evaluation is not observable by
> conventional
To take optimal advantage of the pre-existing optimization for repeated filters
we could split the application of different types of stringifiers.
The resulting difference in order of evaluation is not observable by
conventional means since all reference type share the same object stringifier,
