On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Pascal Costanza <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > 1. intern-eql-specializer is not strictly necessary. ... > I had somewhat noticed ;-) > > 2. Don’t take the CLOS MOP specification as some kind of final word on how > CLOS should be implemented. ... > Usage as made it more or less mandatory by now I think. > > 3. I’m not convinced that eql specializers are the most pressing concern. > For example, the total lack of a good specification for method combination > metaobjects is much more worrisome. > Yep! That one was a bit freakish when I redid it lately in the thing I tinker with. > Also, the generic function invocation protocol is too restrictive, in that > it doesn’t allow for more modern inlining techniques (like polymorphic > inline caches, or trace-based JIT compilation, for example). > This is almost precisely the subject I wanted to address next on this list, in a couple of weeks, when I'll think I'd be ready... > > 4. If you are really concerned about eql specializers > I am not that much concerned about them and, in fact, I consider the matter settled now. Thanks, JCB
_______________________________________________ pro mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
