On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 2:45 PM Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What you call a "giant rewrite" is basically this patch. It's a purely > > syntactical patch only extending rather than reducing possible > > approaches and perfectly compatible with different implementations. The > > work for that patch is already done, the impact is similar to what > > happened when changing around the syntax of unsmob a few times ian the > > past. It will allow for prolonged work on possibly different > > implementations without having to constantly deal with merge conflicts. > > > > It does not depend on picking a particular implementation. You > > expressed interest in what I was planning to do with the opportunity > > this patch opens, I answered. I do not, however, see the point in > > discussing and dissing (partially) unwritten code based on an incomplete > > understanding in a handwaving discussion. > > I think it is not out of the ordinary to discuss plans invasive plans > before implementing them. I think this change is invasive because it > changes the idiom across the source code, and I disagree that this > change is net neutral. C++ method calls are a more natural idiom plain > function calls. If we can get a significant performance boost, that > may be worth it, but I think we should first understand if that is the > case. As said (see above), I am skeptical.
Also, property access accounts for about 10% of runtime, last time I looked. This can probably be reduced by some factor, but even if it were infinitely fast, it is not going to make a huge difference to the overall runtime. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen