Re: Multiple return values

smryan@mail.com (!@?*$%)
18 Apr 1997 00:41:35 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Multiple return values Arthur.Chance@Smallworld.co.uk (1997-04-16)
Re: Multiple return values WStreett@shell.monmouth.com.spamguard (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values smryan@mail.com (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values icedancer@ibm.net (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values hbaker@netcom.com (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values (Mars Saxman) marssaxman%sprynet.com.antispam@nac (marssaxman) (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values preston@tera.com (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values jbuck@Synopsys.COM (1997-04-18)
[27 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: smryan@mail.com (!@?*$%)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.misc
Date: 18 Apr 1997 00:41:35 -0400
Organization: The Programmer formerly known as S M Ryan
References: 97-04-091
Keywords: design

> that multiple results *are* multiple arguments when you're wearing
> CPS-tinted glasses. Why is this?


Because until very recently, procedures in nearly every language had
to return their results in a register. There are still very few
languages that allow a return of a variable size result.


Note that returning a pointer to the result is not the same as
returning a variable sized result since the pointer, that which is
actually returned, is fixed size. When you consider how returns are
implemented, this restriction is understandable. But the restriction
against fixed size results that won't fit in registers is very silly.


--
| S M Ryan, Cupertino CA
| mail to: smryan@mail.com
--

Post a followup to this message

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