ccc_ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) (08/07/90)
Has anybody else noticed that call-by-name makes a certain amount of
sense when you're expanding routine calls in-line?
Think of macros that expand to generated code (or perhaps some
intermediate form thereof), as opposed to more source code.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro fone: +64-71-562-889
Computer Services Dept fax: +64-71-384-066
University of Waikato electric mail: ldo@waikato.ac.nz
Hamilton, New Zealand 37^ 47' 26" S, 175^ 19' 7" E, GMT+12:00
--
Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
{spdcc | ima | lotus| world}!esegue. Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue.rwh@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU (Robert Harper) (08/07/90)
ccc_ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes: >Has anybody else noticed that call-by-name makes a certain amount of sense >when you're expanding routine calls in-line? Think of macros that expand to >generated code (or perhaps some intermediate form thereof), as opposed to >more source code. John Reynolds certainly has: his new language, Forsythe, is call-by-name, and the compiler makes heavy use of this property. In fact, the default is to open-code all procedures, with closed-coding forced only when recursion is involved. -- Robert Harper School of Computer Science Net: rwh@cs.cmu.edu Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 3675 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 -- Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us {spdcc | ima | lotus| world}!esegue. Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue.