[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tail call elimination
From: |
Edward Welbourne |
Subject: |
Re: Tail call elimination |
Date: |
Mon, 25 May 2020 12:37:43 +0000 |
Pete Dietl (22 May 2020 09:18)
> As for a name for $(cond), we could call it
> $(alu ...)
> And put arithmetic and logical operations in it :)
Amusing as this is, I don't think it's a good name !
> I donâ€™t like using $(cond)
> Because because I sort of want to option to implement cond like in Scheme.
There are already $(if, test, yes, no) evaluating to yes if test is a
non-empty string, no if it is empty; $(or conds,...) evaluating to the
first non-empty condition, empty if all are empty; and $(and conds...)
evaluating to the first empty condition, else the last parameter. So no
need for cond. I would tend towards defining a
$(compare before, after, rise, same, fall)
which evaluates to rise if before < after, same if before == after and
fall if before > after. That packs all of the <, <=, >, >=, == and !=
tests into one; when you want the cases where two come out the same,
$(if $(compare $(a), $(b),,y,y),ge,lt)
will evaluate to ge if $(a) >= $(b), else to lt, so that repeating y
saves repeating a potentially long ge text. Obvious similar usage can
handle the other "use same value in two cases" options.
On the need for a named function: note that $*, $(*), $(*D), $(*F) and
likewise for $+ all have meanings already, so overloading them to also
be the multiplication and addition operators sounds imprudent, even if
it is possible. I think $(math op, args) makes sense, so as to have
only one entry-point in both code and documentation.
I think each operator should initialize a result to its first argument
then use the operator to combine the current result with each successive
argument; so $(math *, 7) evaluates to 7, $(math /, $(size) 1024 1024)
turns a size in bytes into a size in MiB and $(math -, $(total) $(subs))
gives the residue when each sub has been subtracted from a total.
But then I've been influenced by Lisp, so I would think that.
I'm sure there's a quote somewhere about every language eventually
growing an implementation of Lisp. Perhaps it's best to stop short of
actually dong that fully, though ...
Eddy.
- Re: Tail call elimination, (continued)
- Re: Tail call elimination, Paul Smith, 2020/05/21
- Re: Tail call elimination, Pete Dietl, 2020/05/21
- Re: Tail call elimination, Pete Dietl, 2020/05/22
- Re: Tail call elimination, Tim Murphy, 2020/05/22
- Re: Tail call elimination, Pete Dietl, 2020/05/23
- math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Paul Smith, 2020/05/23
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Pete Dietl, 2020/05/23
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Paul Smith, 2020/05/24
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Pete Dietl, 2020/05/24
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Paul Smith, 2020/05/24
- Re: Tail call elimination,
Edward Welbourne <=
- Re: Tail call elimination, Tim Murphy, 2020/05/20
- Re: Tail call elimination, Paul Smith, 2020/05/20
- Re: Tail call elimination, Pete Dietl, 2020/05/20
- math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Paul Smith, 2020/05/20
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Pete Dietl, 2020/05/20
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Edward Welbourne, 2020/05/25
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Sam Kendall, 2020/05/25
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Edward Welbourne, 2020/05/25
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Pete Dietl, 2020/05/25
- Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination), Tim Murphy, 2020/05/25