[Pharo-project] cull: protocol
stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Fri Feb 19 10:42:22 EST 2010
the fast or the slow :)
On Feb 19, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Henrik Johansen wrote:
> Den 19.02.2010 14:03, skrev Levente Uzonyi:
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Henrik Johansen wrote:
>>> Well, ugly was a strong word.
>>> Reusing less, aka. shorter is a better choice, I guess.
>> I think the difference is 3 lines for the 4 methods.
>>> PS. In VisualWorks, the two perform equally. *Wishing for a Cog VM to
>>> test on* :)
>> There's no inlining VM available ATM (besides SqueakJ, but that can't
>> run current images) and noone knows when one will be. And even though I
>> didn't try it, I expect that "inlining by hand" saves time and memory.
> No objections here, it's definately faster.
>>> PPS. For those interested, the alternative, faster version Levente made
>>> can be found at http://paste.lisp.org/display/93130
>> Here is a working example (the linked version has a bug):
>> BlockClosure >> cull: argument1 cull: argument2
>> numArgs = 2 ifTrue: [ ^self value: argument1 value: argument2 ].
>> numArgs = 1 ifTrue: [ ^self value: argument1 ].
>> ^self value
> Ah yes, had forgotten about that.
> How about:
> numArgs > 1 ifTrue: [ ^self value: argument1 value: argument2 ].
> numArgs = 1 ifTrue: [ ^self value: argument1 ].
> ^self value
> That way, you get "This block accepts 3 arguments, but was called with 2 arguments" instead of "... was called with 0 arguments" error messages if the block has too many args.
>> (For #cull:cull:cull: the difference is ~1.7x if the block has 0 or 1
>> argument, and ~1.3x if it has 2 arguments)
> Then also consider the scale
> "overhead of 120 ms rather than 320ms for 1 million cull:cull:cull:
> sends where the block has one arg, compared to a raw value: send
> (130ms)". ;)
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr
More information about the Pharo-dev