Re: Question about call-next-method

One of the things I specifically have in mind is the idea of “supercompilation” where you optimize a function for future use while running it based on monitoring its execution. Another idea is to compile (or finish compiling) a function after the arguments are known, which may eliminate or simplify much of the internal code. If that happens to affect internal loops, one can get a substantial reduction in constant factors that lead to significant run-time gains, even in the face of the overhead of running the compiler itself. (Of course, that would generally only apply to higher exponent polynomial complexity algorithms, NP-Hard functions, etc. depending on the actual size of the input).

These, of course, are not new concepts (the REFAL language that first explored supercompilation dates to the 1970s). However, I’m not aware of anyone trying to apply these concepts to domain-specific applications of Lisp. 

> On Nov 16, 2025, at 1:16 PM, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On 16 Nov 2025, at 17:30, Bradford Miller (as gorbag at icloud dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> One can already redefine common functions in the middle of a program and use them unless their calls were compiled
> 
> Try to read what I wrote.  I'll quote it here:
> 
>> Still less should the behaviour of programs which might add, redefine or remove methods to a generic function while it is being called be defined.
> 
> 
> Do you see the bit I have now emphasized above?  So what you are asking or is not 'redefining functions and using them': it is redefining functions that are in the process of being called and then expecting that the new definition takes effect for that call.
> 
> (Redefinition of ordinary functions is in fact allowed not 'unless they were compiled', but unless their callers were in the same file or they're declared inline.).