From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,184737148aef02ac X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Building a compiler (was: Fixed point multiplication ambiguity) Date: 1999/02/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 440008179 Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com References: <7982p8$nll$2@plug.news.pipex.net> Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Nick Roberts (Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com) wrote: : It's not a problem of semantics, but of compiler speed. Users are tolerant, : but they don't like it when the compiler hasn't finished by the time they've : got back from the loo ;-) Overload resolution almost certainly takes a miniscule proportion of compile time on any "real" program. Most lines have no overloading at all. As I mentioned, the only time I have ever seen it take a measurable amount of time was on that amazingly long concatenation of aggregates. So that case may be worth thinking about a bit, but for the others, the key is to keep the overload resolution algorithm as simple and understandable as possible. Chances are, unfortunately, that "as understandable as possible" won't be very understandable ;-). Especially if you try to keep predefined operators out of the symbol table... : ... : Nick -Tuck -- -Tucker Taft stt@averstar.com http://www.averstar.com/~stt/ Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions (www.averstar.com/tools) AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.) Burlington, MA USA