From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/18170 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hrvoje Niksic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Pterodactyl Gnus v0.39 is released Date: 26 Oct 1998 00:59:04 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035156741 4765 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:32:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:32:21 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from fisher.math.uh.edu (fisher.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.35]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA04010 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:59:56 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by fisher.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAB26731; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:59:45 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:59:34 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [209.195.19.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA13063 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:59:22 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA03980 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:59:18 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from hniksic@localhost) by jagor.srce.hr (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA09851; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:59:04 +0100 (MET) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: Hrvoje X-Face: &{dT~)Pu6V<0y?>3p$;@vh\`C7xB~A0T-J%Og)J,@-1%q6Q+, gs<-9M#&`I8cJp2b1{vPE|~+JE+gx;a7%BG{}nY^ehK1"q#rG O,Rn1A_Cy%t]V=Brv7h writes: > Hrvoje Niksic writes: > > > I disagree with your distinction of "really compiled" vs. > > "byte-compiled" functions. It makes as much sense for compiled > > functions to be called just that. The type of the compilation is an > > implementation detail. > > I don't think so. The difference between Lisp and byte-code is in > many ways as big as the difference between byte-code and native code. > For instance, you can instrument byte-compiled functions, but you > can't instrument natively compiled code. This statement, as it stands, is untrue for a bunch of Common Lisp compilers. For example, CMUCL can instrument natively compiled code, if you use a debug compiler setting. I was told the same is true for ACL. Also, it's not entirely true that byte-compiled code can't segfault, etc. But these things are not the point. The point is that the crucial difference (IMHO) is whether the code is interpreted or compiled, not how it is compiled. I don't buy the notion that a byte-compiled function is somehow "less compiled" because it's not compiled to native code. So, the moment XEmacs developers decided to abstract away a "compiled function" object, I believe they chose a good name for the accessor functions. -- Hrvoje Niksic | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- there's a beast upon my shoulder / and a fiend upon my back