Re: The compilation approach in modern languages

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
28 Feb 2005 00:46:35 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[11 earlier articles]
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2005-02-16)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages torbenm@diku.dk (2005-02-18)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2005-02-18)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages hannah@schlund.de (2005-02-18)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages boldyrev@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru (Ivan Boldyrev) (2005-02-18)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages jle@ural.owlnet.rice.edu (2005-02-20)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2005-02-28)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2005-02-28)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2005-03-01)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages boldyrev@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru (Ivan Boldyrev) (2005-03-04)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2005-03-05)
Re: The compilation approach in modern languages hannah@schlund.de (2005-05-18)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Feb 2005 00:46:35 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-02-05305-02-056 05-02-062 05-02-077 05-02-080
Keywords: functional

On 18 Feb 2005 22:49:12 -0500, hannah@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter)
wrote:


>Hello!
>
>George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>[...]
>
>>Most (all?) of the recognized functional languages allow functions to
>>be redefined and anonymous functions to be created, but I don't know
>>whether they routinely permit the same kind of run time extension
>>possible in Lisp.
>
>Redefinition? When I look at Haskell, SML or ocaml, I don't see a way
>to redefine functions (in the sense that you can, at run time, change
>the definition).


Terminology? I didn't mean a function can be changed, I meant that
its name can be re-bound to a different function (possibly eliminating
all references to the first function).


George



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.