From: "Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: A Record Interpretation of an Array
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:45:11 +0300
Date: 2001-06-01T11:45:11+03:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9f7l40$5f6$1@news.huji.ac.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: B7BR6.89883$p33.1865700@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com
> The idea is "abstract, then fulfill the abstractions" as opposed to
"pretend
> it's something else that is equivalent."
>
Yes. That's also the approach I'd use. But notice that there is going to be
overhead. Perhpas small enough not to matter, and perhaps it is going to be
possible to reduce it even more by inlining. But abstracting usually means
procedure calls.
--
Ehud Lamm mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ehudlamm <== Me!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-01 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-05-28 22:53 A Record Interpretation of an Array Marc A. Criley
2001-05-29 3:29 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-05-29 13:34 ` Ted Dennison
2001-05-29 14:16 ` Marin David Condic
2001-05-31 0:55 ` Keith Thompson
2001-05-31 12:47 ` Marc A. Criley
2001-06-01 1:22 ` Keith Thompson
2001-06-01 0:14 ` Mark
2001-06-01 8:45 ` Ehud Lamm [this message]
2001-06-01 12:39 ` Marc A. Criley
2001-06-01 18:20 ` Tucker Taft
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox