User talk:Kevin Reid: Difference between revisions

(reply re eql and =)
Line 31:
 
Unless performance is at issue, code should be written to be clear. One heuristic for clarity is to use the most specific (reasonably) operator that applies to the types being worked with, so = rather than EQL for numbers. Also, = will compare integers and floats by value. With regard to performance: I could equally argue that a compiler with unboxed-number support but not a full set of optimizations would need to box the numbers to invoke EQL on them, but not for = since that is an always-numeric operator. So I can't agree with your performance assumption without actual benchmark data. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 
== Toadstool not lispy enough? ==
 
On [[User:Kevin Reid/Common Lisp tasks]] you said my library isn't Lispy enough. Could you propose alternate syntax, then? [[User talk:foobie-bletch|Foobie Bletch]] 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)