Re: Representing Closures in C

<tommy.thorn@gmail.com> wrote:


> > However [de Bruijn indexing] an elegant method, I am told that it hard
to use in debugging,
> > as it is difficult for humans to interpret. So in actual functional
> > language implementations, it has not been used so much.
>
> This is really no different than the problem of tracking source level
> variables in the optimized assembly. A tedious task for humans, but
> that's what compilers use symbol debugging entries (eg. DWARF2) for.


To begin with, I am just quoting some Hugs/Haskell developers. I am
not saying not to use it. But I would think that implementing a
correct functional language is considerably more difficult than
working with assembly code, simply because one works on a higher
mathematical structural level with less direct intuition.


> If it sees little application in practice it may have more to do
> with the fact that it's still only a step on the road to an
> efficient implementation.


The best way to find out, I gather, is to try it. If debugging becomes
difficult, it comes to my mind, one might perhaps try a hybrid, where
the computer uses de Bruijn indexing, and variable names are somehow
retained for the user.


If you go beyond a simple functional language, towards theorem provers
which binds variables in several types of ways, then definitely, getting
it correct is a major hurdle. Then, humans must be able to efficiently
read the formulas, and verify them by hand, otherwise efficient debugging
cannot expect to take place.


--
    Hans Aberg

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