On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-RipollSorry, it wasn't clear to me that it was "old" - I got it from a doc
> You are looking at the _old_ manual. That section is obsolete, but I did not
> have time to go through the whole manual again.
tree I recently built from the ecl-doc repo. Should such parts be at
least marked with *obsolete* somehow if there is no time for updating?
> That said, ECL no longer implements unboxed functions. It was very hard toThis seems sensible to me, but it doesn't really explain the warning I
> maintained and lead to code bloat: we had to provide two functions for every
> signature, one with Common Lisp objects, another one with unboxed values. It
> could be reimplemented using appropriate proclamations, but the default
> action was to remove it.
> Outside from function arguments, the rest can be fully unboxed, as you see
> in the new code body, which is also more readable.
got, does it? Shouldn't the compiler just ignore the proclamation in
that case instead of apparently failing to understand it?