[plt-scheme] Unhygienic macro not needed?

Ok, I quite agree with you. Indeed my little tests did not show any
significant difference.

Laurent

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 17:32, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastlund at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20091120/92427e5a/attachment.html>