Bjorn Lisper:
...sometimes the length of a list being returned from a
function can be a simple function of the function arguments (or the sizes of
the arguments), think of map for instance. In such cases, a static program
analysis can sometimes find the length function. If we know thee
Jerzy:
Me:
...sometimes the length of a list being returned from a
function can be a simple function of the function arguments (or the sizes of
the arguments), think of map for instance. In such cases, a static program
analysis can sometimes find the length function. If we know thee functions
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Hal Daume III wrote:
I tend to agree. I keep meaning for experimental purposes to define a
list type called AList or something which is syntactically identical to
lists (i.e., you can use the familiar (:) and [] operators/sugar), but
gets preprocessed out as actually
Karl-Filip:
But what I really meant is, if I may rephrase it, that imperative
programs might often be both faster and harder to write because they
embed more information about the abblication domain. That is, if you
code in C and want an array, you must specify its size, so you have to
think
Claus Reinke wrote:
The ground is better prepared than ever. It remains up to you to
decide whether you're confident enough to use FP, without needless
hype, and just for the many things you know it can do well.
As a naive but interested newbie, I'm very keen to understand those
things
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Karl-Filip Faxen wrote:
On the performance (or not) of high level code: I'm working on a
compiler with a strong emphasis on generating good code for
I wish you luck!
It is going to be interesting to see how much this will give. I suspect
that part of the performance
