|writing a compiler... ltk_RE_MO_VE_@libero.it (Tommy) (2003-06-03)|
|Re: writing a compiler... firstname.lastname@example.org (Vasile Rotaru) (2003-06-05)|
|Re: writing a compiler... email@example.com (2003-06-05)|
|Re: writing a compiler... JeffKenton@attbi.com (Jeff Kenton) (2003-06-05)|
|Re: writing a compiler... cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-06-05)|
|Re: writing a compiler... Steve_Lipscombe@amat.com (2003-06-08)|
|Re: writing a compiler... firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-06-20)|
|Re: writing a compiler... Conor.ONeill.NoSpamPlease@logicacmg.com (Conor O'Neill) (2003-06-20)|
|Re: writing a compiler... email@example.com (Lex Spoon) (2003-06-25)|
|From:||"Conor O'Neill" <Conor.ONeill.NoSpamPlease@logicacmg.com>|
|Date:||20 Jun 2003 00:13:20 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||20 Jun 2003 00:13:20 EDT|
>Mmph. In a round about, fudge it a bit here, kind of way....
>IIRC it's Pascal that allows something like:
>if f(a) and g(b) then ...
>to evaluate f() and g() in either order.
>But if f() and g() have side-effects such that the behaviour of the
>program is determined by which executes first, then the program is
>wrong. I don't think that's something that can be checked by a
>compiler on an arbitrary program?
This is entirely checkable, if the language distinguishes between
'functions', which have no side-effects, and 'procedures', which may
have. Occam 2 has this property.
Conor O'Neill, Bristol, UK. Not speaking for my employer.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.