Hi, "Mikael Djurfeldt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/4/13, Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Yeah. More pragmatically, things like SRFI-9 accessors could be >> implemented as applicable SMOBS: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/6716 > > I think it's a good idea to read and understand the code before > planning changes. At least given the state of Guile at the point when > GOOPS accessors were implemented, the current imlementation was > superior to both a slot-ref-based and a SMOB-based implementation. > This is because dispatching a smob took longer time for the evaluator > than interpreting the current special form-based solution > (@assert-bound-ref). Note that the current implementation *does* > compile in the slot position into this form and indeed *has* the > property which Andy mentions above. Also, SMOB-based accessors would > be more heavyweight with regard to class creation and memory > consumption than the current solution. Sure. Note that my remark and the referred thread dealt with struct and SRFI-9 record accessors, not with GOOPS. Thanks for your comment, Ludovic.
