[plt-scheme] Unhygienic macro not needed?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Laurent <laurent.orseau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 17:14, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastlund at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Joe Marshall <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Laurent <laurent.orseau at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have the following (simplified) code :
>> >>
>> >> (define (f1 x)
>> >>   (let ([y (foo x)])
>> >>     (bar x y y)
>> >>     (plop y x y)
>> >>     (baz x y)))
>> >>
>> >> (define (f2 x)
>> >>   (let ([y (foo x)])
>> >>     (baz x y)))
>> >
>> > (define (wrapper receiver)
>> >  (lambda (x)
>> >    (let ((y (foo x)))
>> >      (receiver x y)
>> >      (baz x y))))
>> >
>> > (define f1
>> >   (wrapper
>> >     (lambda (x y)
>> >         (bar x y y)
>> >         (plop y x y) )))
>> >
>> > (define f2
>> >   (wrapper
>> >      (lambda (x y) #f)))
>>
>> Oops.  Joe, of course, has the best solution.  No need for "macrology"
>> when "functionality" does the job.  Pardon the puns.
>
> But this introduces a (little?) run-time cost, doesn't it?

Two responses.  One, code clarity is almost always more important than
tiny runtime costs.  Two, no it doesn't, as long as the compiler is
even halfway intelligent about inlining and constant propagation.
Trust the compiler.  If it's good, it's often smarter about optimizing
your code than you are.  If it's bad, your code is never going to run
fast anyway.

--Carl