Thu, 10 Feb 1994 18:06:41 GMT

Related articles |
---|

Pascal compiler and sets dallison@bfsec.bt.co.uk (1994-02-08) |

Re: Pascal compiler and sets davisdm@widget.msfc.nasa.gov (1994-02-08) |

Re: Pascal compiler and sets mauney@adm.csc.ncsu.edu (1994-02-08) |

Re: Pascal compiler and sets samiam@netcom.com (1994-02-09) |

Pascal compiler and sets ssimmons@convex.com (1994-02-09) |

Re: Pascal compiler and sets stenuit@axp05.acset.be (1994-02-10) |

Re: Pascal compiler and sets wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (1994-02-10) |

Re: Pascal compiler and sets synaptx!thymus!daveg@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Gillespie) (1994-02-10) |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

From: | stenuit@axp05.acset.be (Pascal Stenuit) |

Keywords: | Pascal |

Organization: | A.C.S.E.T. |

References: | 94-02-051 94-02-059 |

Date: | Thu, 10 Feb 1994 18:06:41 GMT |

*>From ssimmons@convex.com (Steve Simmons)*

*> The maximum size of a set is dependent upon its definition; however,*

*> it can be statically computed. Therefore, it is usually best to implement*

*> them as bit vectors because the following four set operations must*

*> be performed (UNION, INTERSECTION, DIFFERENCE, and IN).*

If I remember correctly, there is one problem with Pascal sets: it is not

always possible to find out the base type of a set constant (as in

[1,4,7]) and this makes difficult allocating storage for it.

That's one reason one implementation may choose to put an upper-bound on

the size of sets. I believe Wirth "fixed" this problem in Modula-2 where a

set constant is always prefixed by its type (can't remember the actual

syntax).

Regards,

--

pascal stenuit. stenuit@acset.be

ACSET. Tel +32 2 655.12.33

Rue du Cerf, 200 Fax +32 2 655.12.11

B-1332 Rixensart (Genval)

--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.