[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DLW's message and Fateman's FLOOR.
- To: BROOKS at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
- Subject: DLW's message and Fateman's FLOOR.
- From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman at Cmu-20c>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1982 17:52:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp at SU-AI
I don't think we need a new declaration. If you want to suppress the
return of multiple values for some form in tail-recursive position, you
can easily do that with, for example,
... (return (prog1 (trunc x y))) ...
Static analysis at compile time will now show that only one value is
coming back. As Rod Brooks points out, one would seldom bother with
this: it is useful only in a call to a multiple-value producer in
tail-recursive position in a place where the speed matters. The use of
TRUNC and friends in a context where the consumer of the value is
lexically apparent can be optimized at compile-time.