|Different string format options, benefits? firstname.lastname@example.org (Sean C. Cox) (1991-10-16)|
|String formats email@example.com (1991-11-06)|
|Re: String formats firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-11-08)|
|Re: String formats email@example.com (1991-11-11)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Stachour)|
|Date:||Mon, 11 Nov 1991 14:47:47 GMT|
email@example.com (Dale R. Worley) writes:
sm>(Stavros Macrakis) writes:
sm> Reasonable programming languages let you define your own
sm> representations while allowing higher-level operations to be oblivious to
sm> that representation. This allows you to change representation based on
sm> tuning data and architectural considerations on each installation.
>To get full value out of this idea, you should be able to specify the
>representation on a variable-by-variable basis.
No, not on a variable-by-variable basis. Remember the one-write rule.
You define a alternate-type for the type, make a representation for each
alternate-type, and then make each variable of the proper alternate-type.
[Ada already does this; it's called derived types; that's one of
the reasons I like Ada: I can govern the representations as much or
as little as I like/need.]
Paul Stachour SCTC, 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100
firstname.lastname@example.org Arden Hills, MN 55112-3739
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.