|Lots of things are happening with ACM TOPLAS firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-03-31)|
|Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis email@example.com (Christian Fabre) (1997-05-22)|
|Re: Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-05-25)|
|Re: Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis email@example.com (Tommy Thorn) (1997-05-27)|
|Partial evaluation in imperative languages. firstname.lastname@example.org (Charles Fiterman) (1997-05-30)|
|Re: Partial evaluation in imperative languages. email@example.com (Stefan Monnier) (1997-05-31)|
|Re: Partial evaluation in imperative languages. firstname.lastname@example.org (Cliff Click) (1997-06-02)|
|Re: Partial evaluation in imperative languages. email@example.com (Charles Fiterman) (1997-06-04)|
|Re: Partial evaluation in imperative languages. firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-06-10)|
|From:||Cliff Click <email@example.com>|
|Date:||2 Jun 1997 10:30:26 -0400|
|Organization:||RISC Software, Motorola|
|References:||97-03-165 97-05-254 97-05-275 97-05-301 97-05-322|
Charles Fiterman wrote:
> I think for partial evaluation to be useful in an imperative language
> there must be language constructs to support it. I am experimenting
> with this notion and we have the following.
> Do this now regardless. mac date; is the compile date. On a function
> it means this is run at compile time. On a variable makes this a compile
> time variable.
> Defer as far as possible, do at run time. May be put on a function
> but may be overridden at compile time. This is the default for variables.
Sniff, sniff. Smells like Forth (with types).
Forth writers have been intermixing run-time with compile-time
since the '60s ('50s? When did Chunk Moore get started?).
Cliff Click, Ph.D. Compiler Researcher & Designer
RISC Software, Motorola PowerPC Compilers
firstname.lastname@example.org (512) 891-7240
[Chunk? Don't you mean Thunk? -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.