So sorry for wasting my time trying to answer your question. It wont happen again.
On 21 June 2018 at 16:38, Per Witte <pjwi...@online.no> wrote: > 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
