Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #1661Re: How to make a language downward-extensible?
From: Dan Bernstein
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 1990 00:54
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 1990 00:54
17 lines
1186 bytes
1186 bytes
In article <13224@june.cs.washington.edu> pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: > * Anything on the list of approved alternatives is a valid > substitution. You write `binsearch (...)' and the compiler > uses > rule-based description > quicksort > any other magic way No; that's exactly what I'm objecting to. I don't want to lose portability just because I'm letting the compiler see several idioms for the same computation. I also don't want to force every recipient of the code to define binsearch or any other symbol just so they can compile. You write out all the choices, explicitly, and the compiler hopes to recognize one of them as something it can really optimize. ---Dan
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1047:Oct800:54:5490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstndReferences:
<18718:Oct120:03:0090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <7976@scolex.sco.COM> <13224@june.cs.washington.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: How to make a language downward-extensible? Message-ID: <1047:Oct800:54:5490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 8 Oct 90 00:54:54 GMT References: <18718:Oct120:03:0090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <7976@scolex.sco.COM> <13224@june.cs.washington.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 17