On 28/06/2018 09:03, Wolfgang Lenerz via Ql-Users wrote:
Hi,
I made a small Sbasic testcase (SMSQE, not QDOS).
I made a program with procedures all called "abcdefghijklmnopqrt"+ a 5
digit number at the end.
The program starts at line 100, is increased by one and very 12th line a
new 10 line
I think it depends on which types of variables you're coercing...
In this case, because integers are stored as floats and are a wicked lie,
ints and floats are already the same thing logically speaking. So the only
invalid coercion is string to float where the string contents are of the
wrong
Hi,
I made a small Sbasic testcase (SMSQE, not QDOS).
I made a program with procedures all called "abcdefghijklmnopqrt"+ a 5
digit number at the end.
The program starts at line 100, is increased by one and very 12th line a
new 10 line procedure is created. The first statement therein is
Hi,
I can't help but wonder whether the time taken to parse all your
parameters to check whether they are the right type won't be longer than
having several procedures.
Wolfgang
> I'll make sure to respond right away in future, before I've fully
> understood the subtleties and implications of
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
On 21 June 2018 at 15:21, Dave Park via Ql-Users
wrote:
> > SuperBASIC is quite unique in that it stores the *difference* in length
> of
> > a line compared to the previous line, along with its line number. This
> way,
> > because the current line length is also stored in a system variable, it
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Jan Bredenbeek via Ql-Users <
ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com> wrote:
> SuperBASIC is quite unique in that it stores the *difference* in length of
> a line compared to the previous line, along with its line number. This way,
> because the current line length is also
On 21 June 2018 at 00:43, Dave Park via Ql-Users
wrote:
> My reason for asking was, I was wondering if an analysis of how frequently
> functions were called, and from where, could affect how quickly they would
> be stepped to. I have seen this behavior in SuperBASIC on JM/JS and
> achieved often
My reason for asking was, I was wondering if an analysis of how frequently
functions were called, and from where, could affect how quickly they would
be stepped to. I have seen this behavior in SuperBASIC on JM/JS and
achieved often useful gains in improvements by placing the most frequently
On 20 June 2018 at 22:35, Dave Park via Ql-Users
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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?
SuperBASIC (JM/JS/Minerva)
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
