Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm
From: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell)
Newsgroups: net.lang.lisp
Subject: macros vs. functions (was: Against the Tide of Common LISP)
Message-ID: <574@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Jun-86 14:36:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.574
Posted: Mon Jun 23 14:36:36 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Jun-86 04:33:17 EDT
References: <1311@well.UUCP> <3827@utah-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell)
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 19

In article <3827@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) writes:
>In article <1311@well.UUCP> jjacobs@well.UUCP (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes:
>[...]  In fact, many expert Lisp hackers replace
>functions with equivalent macros when possible, to save function call overhead
>(I don't recommend this practice, most compilers have hooks to opencode user
>functions when requested).

My question doesn't really have anything to do with the original posting(s),
rather I'm interested in this comment on macros vs. functions.  Many of the
functions I write are only called from one place in the program (not
recursively!),  and are never called by the user; they're just conveniences 
for top-down programming.  I've often wondered whether turning them into macros 
wouldn't speed things up.  Anyone care to comment on Stan's contention that
turning such functions into macros doesn't speed things up?
comment on the 
-- 
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
	...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm