On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 16:41 +0200, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:
> > Here is ackermann's function in the new format:
> >
> > //C PROC <5925>: ack_mkproc
> > void FLX_REGPARM ack_mkproc(
> > int x_mkproc, int y_mkproc, int* _5943_mkproc)
> > {
> > int _mkp_5953;
> > start_5557:;
> > ifnot(x
> From: skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 00:07 +1000, skaller wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 19:23 +1000, skaller wrote:
> > > I'm thinking of changing procedures so they can return values.
> >
> > It's done, as follows:
>
> Here is ackermann's function in the new format:
>
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 00:16 +1000, skaller wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 00:07 +1000, skaller wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 19:23 +1000, skaller wrote:
> > > I'm thinking of changing procedures so they can return values.
> >
> > It's done, as follows:
>
> Here is ackermann's function in the n
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 00:07 +1000, skaller wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 19:23 +1000, skaller wrote:
> > I'm thinking of changing procedures so they can return values.
>
> It's done, as follows:
Here is ackermann's function in the new format:
//C PROC <5925>: ack_mkproc
void FLX_REGPARM ack_mkp
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 19:23 +1000, skaller wrote:
> I'm thinking of changing procedures so they can return values.
It's done, as follows:
1. FIRST ORDER: The algorithm only eliminates direct applications,
it does not eliminate applications whose argument
is not a function constant, eg it wo
I'm thinking of changing procedures so they can return values.
The only difference between procs and funs will be that procs
can have side effects, and applications are eagerly evaluated.
The implementation of a proc returning a value will be a proc
with an extra argument pointing to the place to
