|Parsing/evaluating shortcutting operators email@example.com (Jeremy J Starcher) (2009-01-13)|
|Re: Parsing/evaluating shortcutting operators firstname.lastname@example.org (Bartc) (2009-01-15)|
|Re: Parsing/evaluating shortcutting operators email@example.com (Jeremy J Starcher) (2009-01-17)|
|From:||Jeremy J Starcher <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:39:56 GMT|
|Posted-Date:||18 Jan 2009 08:06:34 EST|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:05:08 +0000, Bartc wrote:
> "Jeremy J Starcher" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> I am unsure how to proceed in setting up shortcutting operators
>> however. For example, this code:
>> declare boolean b
>> b = (1 == 2) || (3 == 4)
>> Which results in the expression
>> 1 2 == 3 4 == || b =
> You've made me feel inadequate, because my compiler only uses shortcut
> evaluation when there are jumps involved (eg. inside an If conditional,
> but not in an ordinary expression).
Hey.. don't feel that way. You are a step over where I am.
> But I found that my (a|b|c) construct (equivalent to C's a?b:c)
> generates code like an If statement.
> So I can fix this 'problem' by turning 'a and b' into (a and b|1|0), and
> 'a or b' into (a or b|1|0), either manually or letting the compile do it
> as you seem to be attempting to.
Interesting idea .... Hmmmm... Room to think. Thank you.
> It's possible that you can try something similar, if you also have an
> equivalent a?b:c operator that already has short-circuit evaluation.
And here I was, going to make the trinary operator work via the
shortcutting operators ;) Chicken-and-egg.
To get it, I think I'm going to have to come up with a different equation
parser, and split the calculations into 'sub-expressions'. Not that I'm
ever going to add optimization, but it would also 'common-subexpression'
elimination, as well as folding constants.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.