On Jul 26, 4:37 am, John Fremlin <[email protected]> wrote: > In teepeedee2 I noticed that make-funcallable/cc is quite high up the > profile. You use that basically as a type tag to determine whether or > not a function can handle a continuation, which could be statically > determined in my cases. > > I have quite a messy patch for it (also for not transforming code where > unnecessary) which is rather broken. I am tidying it up now. > > Any advice or thoughts would be appreciated.
I don't have particular advice here (not least because I'm mostly doing cl-cont maintenance because no one else cares). But I'm looking forward to your patch. You might consider adopting SBCL's DEFTRANSFORM framework for handling source-to-source transformations. > Would you be adverse to including macroexpand-dammit as a preprocessing > stage? -- It cleans out all the macrolets and symbol-macrolets, making > the next stage much cleaner.http://paste.lisp.org/display/83349 > > I've tested it on most current lisps. I'm in favor of this, but a patch should include at least basic automated tests for it. I gather that usual implementations of MACROEXPAND-ALL do not remove (SYMBOL-)MACROLETs? Leslie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
