Re: Smart variables, dumb variables

[Marius Vollmer]

address@hidden writes:

> > I had in mind that the compiler could use the bit to decide if it is
> > allowed to inline some functions (such as '+', 'car', ...) but I no
> > longer think that would be the right way.
> 
> Wouldn't that imply that certain functions will never be 'generic' ?

What do you mean with generic?

The way I imagine it, is that you can put declarations on variables
that the compiler is allowed to trust at compile-time, and one such
declaration could be "this variable holds the R5RS primitive procedure
'+' and will always hold it."  This is a reasonable declaration to
make.  The compiler could then inline the fixnum part of '+' and call
out-of-line code for the rest.

So my next proposal is to add declarations to variables... :-)

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405