> So calling TimL functions have overhead that calling VimL functions don't. But that's easy to optimize away, I imagine. I read this as a way for forming clos

> So calling TimL functions have overhead that calling VimL functions don't. But that's easy to optimize away, I imagine. I read this as a way for forming closures and it's easy to see during compilation if the closure is necessary. Actually, it's not a case right now, but it is reasonable to expect to have TimL generate on average better VimL than handwritten, like many C compilers do with asm. I guess "make it work" is more important right now than "make it fast", but if it becomes used, I'm sure it will improve quickly on performance front.