Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!not-for-mail From: Peter von der Ahe Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the Mjoelner implementation? Date: 13 Feb 1998 17:49:12 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Lines: 28 Sender: pahe@ufleku.daimi.aau.dk Message-ID: References: <6c1hga$39h@nx2.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: ufleku.daimi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Attribution: Ahe X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.lang.beta:11398 >>>>> "MN" == Mark Nowiasz writes: MN> So, what does 5 -> do_something; really do? If it's a synonym MN> for 5 -> &do_something; then it's a grave breach in the logic MN> of BETA.. As defined on page 80 in the BETA book E->P->A, where P is a pattern, the P object is called an inserted item. The idea is that the P object is allocated as a part of the surrounding object (only once), where as if &P had been used the P object would be allocated each time the statement is executed. This can lead to a lot of allocations of (small) objects in a loop construction. The E->P->A form is normally preferred as it will lead to more efficient loops. However, in The Mjolner BETA System implementation, P is a synonym for &P and therefore there is no difference as to writing P or &P. /Peter -- o============o Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE) to this address Legal Notice is indication of your consent to pay me $120/hour for 1 hour o============o minimum for professional proofreading & technical assessment. Peter von der Ahé · pahe@daimi.aau.dk ·