[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Size of a non numerical indexed table
- From: David Given <dg@...>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:01:18 +0100
On Thursday 01 September 2005 17:47, Rici Lake wrote:
> Not if ... had a lot of elements. I think eachi would have to use two
> different strategies: if called with more than maxupval arguments, it
> would have to create a table and use a different next function.
How does ... work, anyway? Does it actually *copy* the data from its original
place on the stack, or does it do something smarter?
I ask because I found an interesting idiom recently for doing work with large
amounts of constant data --- it was while writing the BF compiler, oddly
enough --- reminiscent of some of the structures used in functional
function process(item1, item2, ...)
In this case it's not really worth it, but I can think of situations when
something like this might be useful, and I was wondering just how horribly
inefficient it is. When writing BF, this is a plus, but anything BF-related
is rather a special case... will I end up with the parameter list duplicated
lots of times on the stack?
+- David Given --McQ-+ "I must have spent at least ten minutes out of my
| email@example.com | life talking to this joker like he was a sane
| (firstname.lastname@example.org) | person. I want a refund." --- Louann Miller, on
+- www.cowlark.com --+ rasfw
Description: PGP signature