From: Ivan Levashew <octagram@bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: Defining a binary operator between function access types: Is it possible?
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2008-10-20T23:46:59-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b1fadb29-118f-4f6f-934e-834927eb7708@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: fed9902a-28f0-4e70-a427-4773b20aae47@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
Nobody seems to mention another way to do the trick. One can use just
downwards closures, and circumvent upwards closures restriction via
CPS, e. g. add extra "Continuation : access procedure" argument in
every procedure, and add extra
"Continuation : access procedure (Result : Your_Result_Type)" argument
in every function. It will actually work. Despite being clearly crazy
(it blows your stack), blowing stack and heap is what actually happens
when C++ compiler interpretes BOOST, Loki, Blitz++ sources. IIUC
standards-compliant C++ compiler can't get rid of any of intermediate
results.
P. S. http://okasaki.blogspot.com/2008/07/functional-programming-inada.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-21 6:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-16 13:34 Defining a binary operator between function access types: Is it possible? soychangoman
2008-10-16 14:26 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-10-16 14:29 ` Adam Beneschan
2008-10-16 22:18 ` Robert A Duff
2008-10-16 15:14 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen
2008-10-17 7:10 ` Defining a binary operator between function access types: Is it anon
2008-10-21 6:46 ` Ivan Levashew [this message]
2008-10-21 13:17 ` Defining a binary operator between function access types: Is it possible? soychangoman
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox