[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(declare (type fixnum ---)) considered etc.
- To: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: (declare (type fixnum ---)) considered etc.
- From: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1986 18:28:00 -0000
- In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Jul 1986 13:59-EDT from Robert A. Cassels <Cassels at STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thursday, 24 July 1986 13:59-EDT
From: Robert A. Cassels <Cassels at STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Re: (declare (type fixnum ---)) considered etc.
If you want the freedom to be sloppy, or you really
can't limit the range, you must either pay the price of reduced
performance or buy a machine which doesn't need declarations to get
performance. [I never use type declarations in my CL programs.]
I don't think we should have people who never use type declarations
telling those of us who do what kind of declarations we can and can't
use. Nor do I think a company should change Common Lisp so that
everyone has to buy their machines to run fast.
I'm getting tired of this discussion. Why doesn't everyone just admit
we aren't going to get agreement on this issue. The split seems to be
drawn largely along special-hardware/standard-hardware lines, and
neither community is going to go away. In any case, flushing the
fixnum declaration is not one of the proposals we are supposed to be
discussing. If it were, it would be unlikely to pass, since under the
criteria for changes, approval would have to be near-unanimous, which