Hi Matthias, Matthias Trute <mtr...@web.de> writes:
> Hi Enoch, > >> I'm confused, please explain how this works... > > See my last mail, the code does (should do) > exactly what I described there. > >> Aren't we supposed to patch the Edefer caller, not its callee? > > The code patches "truck" from being a deferred word to a simple > call to the current redirection (defer@) Basically it turns the > ' engine is truck to the result of " : truck engine ; ". > > Patching all places, where "truck" is used, is troublesome. > > But again, I'm not sure that I understood you correctly. > Matthias Your new cookbook entry regarding protecting deferred words from subsequent change (ie, "sealing") made it clear that our objectives are different. My aim is speed, how to remove a level of indirection that was born just as a necessity to solve a forward reference... Discovering those Edefer variable calls is not trivial. Originally I thought of doing so via a "just-in-time" like method of optimization, ie a "runtime" method. Now I think that better would be to optimize the bytecode "offline"... Thanks, Enoch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ Amforth-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
