mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (07/06/89)
In article <413@xdos.UUCP> doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes:
<They're also defined cleanly enough that it's hard to imagine a modern
<day general purpose cpu that would have trouble allowing their
<implementation, so I wonder why they didn't get included.
Actually, I wonder why people think they weren't. They are in the
February 20th, 1987 draft (one of these days, I'll get a more recent
copy).
BTW, what makes you think the committee is only paying attention to
general purpose CPUs? "noalias" was added at the behest of people doing
implementations for vector processors.
In any case, setjmp/longjmp have changed slightly. I vaguely recall
hearing that it was at the behest of people doing C compilers for
LISPMs.
<mike
--
Here's a song about absolutely nothing. Mike Meyer
It's not about me, not about anyone else, mwm@berkeley.edu
Not about love, not about being young. ucbvax!mwm
Not about anything else, either. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETdoug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (07/06/89)
In article <26034@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > [ setjmp/longjmp ] are in the February 20th, 1987 draft. Good. >BTW, what makes you think the committee is only paying attention to >general purpose CPUs? "noalias" was added at the behest of people doing >implementations for vector processors. I thought that was non-negotiable? :-) Well, you see: 1) If I hadn't qualified it, somebody would've said "There's this hybrid APL/Lisp processor that can't longjmp because..." 2) I imagine the committee cares the *most* about the most common uses, so the point was that they wouldn't leave it out just because some vector processor had trouble with it; it's too valuable for the normal cases. Adding "noalias" (unesthetic though it may be) is not quite the same as deleting a normal, heavily used feature. (Ok, now raise the issue of constant strings :-) But that's not *heavily* used.) Doug >In any case, setjmp/longjmp have changed slightly. I vaguely recall >hearing that it was at the behest of people doing C compilers for >LISPMs. Hmmm. Does this undermine me? Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary