home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin)
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:42:21 GMT
- Subject: Re: Re: dlocals etc. (and shallow binding)
- Message-ID: <KERS.93Jan28134221@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>
- Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.pop
- References: <C1CAwq.8up@cs.bham.ac.uk> <116670051@otter.hpl.hp.com> <1993Jan26.160320.27465@cm.cf.ac.uk> <C1ID7x.FDE@cs.bham.ac.uk> <KERS.9
- Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator)
- Lines: 27
- In-Reply-To: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com's message of 27 Jan 93 14:23:26
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com
-
- In article ... kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) wrote ...
-
- ... quite a lot, actually.
-
- The Pepper solution is this. First, there are two kinds of declarations,
- ``val'' and ``var''. Identifiers declared by ``val'' are not assignable
- (the declaration initialises them), while those declared by ``val'' are.
- ^
- Of course, you will have noticed that I should have said ``var'' | ...
-
- [Quickly scanning the Pepper code to hand, I see more than 750 ``val''s
- and less than 250 ``var''s. ...]
-
- I realised (thanks, Steve) that I had completely forgotten about for
- loop identifiers and procedure parameters! There were 92 for loops
- (each contributing one val identifier) and about 1170 parameters,
- of which about 20 were var's (by default, they'd be val's). That
- brings to total to approximately 1900 val's versus 270 var's, so
- val's make up about 7/8ths of the variables in my code.
-
- The numbers are only approximate, because I used grep, tr, and wc
- to do my counting. But they shouldn't be too far off. Perhaps one
- day I'll hack the compiler to do the stats for me.
- --
-
- Regards, | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come;
- Kers. | Dreams are always ending far too soon." - Caravan.
-