Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

will@x scripsit:

> That's unlikely to be any faster than what I proposed.  The number? predicate
> probably involves on the order of five separate type tests (fixnum, bignum,
> ratnum, flonum, compnum).  In Larceny, four of those five type tests are full
> type tests, so the number of machine instructions inlined would be greater
> than for what I proposed, and the performance would be worse.

Ah.  I had hoped that it would be a bitmask test only.

("He had hoped at least / When the wind blew due East / That the ship would
not travel due West!"  --The Bellman, _The Hunting of the Snark_)

-- 
La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi                            John Cowan
Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi.              cowan@x
                --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports