Article View: comp.lang.functional
Article #1000TIM and SECD
From: Tom Affinito
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 23:50
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 23:50
24 lines
1468 bytes
1468 bytes
Question from a novice: I'm trying to get an intuition for Fairburn & Wray's TIM machine. I've read their '87 paper, and am familar with SECD, SKI reduction, and the G-machine. What I'm trying to get is some deep feeling on how TIM relates to SECD and SKI reduction. It seems to me that TIM is very similar to what compiled code for an SECD system would be like....a series of instructions for manipulating the stacks, building environments, and storing partial results. Is the difference solely in the fact that environments need not be created in TIM because of the preliminary lambda-lifting phase? IE, if SECD had had a supercombinator preprocessor, might it have looked like TIM? In what ways do SECD + graph reduction = TIM? In what ways should that = be <>? (Abstractly of course) Any flames, impressions, or weird musings are most welcome!! :) Tom Affinito taff@kate.ucsc.edu ----------------------------------------------- function for an arbitrary permutation of a vector argument in J: p =. @:~?&!&# Wow!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<16372@darkstar.ucsc.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!ucsc.eduReferences:
<949@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!ucsc.edu From: taff@ucsc.edu (Tom Affinito) Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional Subject: TIM and SECD Keywords: TIM, SECD Message-ID: <16372@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Date: 30 May 91 23:50:48 GMT References: <949@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu Lines: 24