On 26 February 2010 19:31, Daniel Ehrenberg <micro...@gmail.com> wrote: > One solution to the whole set of incompatiblities between call and > call( would be to eliminate call in favor of call(, eliminating the > combinator inlining system in the process. In my opinion, this would > make the whole language much cleaner and nicer. No combinator inlining > semantics to remember when writing your program; you can just think > about how the compiler works when optimizing your code.
That intrigued me - for the (pretty simple) code I've written, I've never thought about combinator inlining semantics - makes me wonder what I'm missing :-) Can you give a pointer to the docs where I can find out a bit more about this (or explain it here)? Factor's performance features fascinate me... Thanks, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
