Re: [Matlisp-users] Matlisp subset in pure CL

[Nicolas N. <Nic...@iw...>]

Raymond Toy <to...@rt...> writes:

>     Nicolas>   1. Use the CL-implemented version, if there is any, and if the matrices
>     Nicolas>      are small.
> 
> And the nice thing is we can even get rid of the call overhead if the
> function could be inlined.  That's a huge win for small
> matrices/vectors. 
> 
> Ray

I have thought about this, but I am completely uncertain how to do such a
thing in a well-behaved way within ANSI CL.  The best thing would probably
be to pay Gerd Moellmann for implementing method inlining in CMUCL.  But
for the moment, the call overhead on small matrices is not (any more) the
show-stopper for Femlisp.  At least, there are other bottlenecks which will
have to be optimized next.

Yours, Nicolas.