Im not familiar with C++ overloading, but S*BASIC allows some "parametric polymorphism", viz:
dim x%(2): for i% = 0 to 2: x%(i%) = 9 - i% Test 'abc', 2.99, x% : def proc Test(a, b%, c) print a\ b% \ c, \ enddef Test : Result: abc 2.99 9 8 7 The SBASIC compiler performs a number of additional passes to SuperBASIC's parser, to end up with a much purer "executable". The compiled program is not machine code, of course, it consists of fixed length tokens that still need to be "interpreted". But all useless baggage has been eliminated from the program flow, expressions teased into simple RPN steps, and locations resolved to absolute addresses. So no, the size of the program or distance to procedures does not effect the speed of execution. On 20 June 2018 at 22:35, Dave Park via Ql-Users <ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > How hard would it be to extend sBASIC functions to support C++ style > overloading? > > Separately, does the sBASIC in SMSQ or Minerva still scan for > procedures/functions from the beginning of the program, so earlier FN/PROCs > have a speed advantage over later ones like in JM/JS? > > > -- > Dave Park > d...@sinclairql.com > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > > _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
