Re: What is the future of Compiler technology?

Eliot Miranda <eliotm@pacbell.net>
19 Jul 2006 14:33:44 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? oliver@first.in-berlin.de (Oliver Bandel) (2006-06-20)
Re: What is the future of Compiler ? frido@q-software-solutions.de (Friedrich Dominicus) (2006-06-22)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? tommy.thorn@gmail.com (Tommy Thorn) (2006-07-05)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? torbenm@app-4.diku.dk (2006-07-06)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2006-07-16)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-07-16)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? eliotm@pacbell.net (Eliot Miranda) (2006-07-19)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) (2006-07-19)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? pocmatos@gmail.com (Paulo Matos) (2006-07-31)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis) (2006-07-31)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-08-03)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis) (2006-08-04)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-08-05)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Eliot Miranda <eliotm@pacbell.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 19 Jul 2006 14:33:44 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-06-04406-06-051 06-06-056 06-06-064 06-07-001
Keywords: OOP

Tommy Thorn wrote:
> Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>
>>And it shows how Microsoft brainwashing works. Have you checked
>>Smalltalk it has full closures from it's beginning,
>
>
> No. In standard Smalltalk, blocks don't capture free variables. I'm
> not sure what happens with those when the block survives the creating
> context. Some commercial variants of Smalltalk have extended the block
> notion to be true closures.


Actually Standard Smalltalk _does_ have full closures. ANSI x3j20
(circa 1998) specifies full closures. Smalltalk-80, from circa 1982,
provided a rather strange scheme that did close over free variables but
did not allow recursive invocation.


In both systems blocks are "full upward funargs" in that they remain
valid, closing over free variables, after their enclosing execution
context has returned.




> Scheme, SML, O'Caml, Haskell, etc all had true closures from day one.
>
> I agree, attempts at shoehorning closures into languages originally
> designed without them have never been very successful.


--
_______________,,,^..^,,,____________________________
Eliot Miranda Smalltalk - Scene not herd



Post a followup to this message

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