Re: Is Dylan a functional language?

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: Is Dylan a functional language?
• From: "Scott McKay" <swm@mediaone.net>
• Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:30:01 -0400 (EDT)
• Organization: Road Runner
• References: <B7EBC337.17AB9%ptw@callitrope.com>
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:13735

"P T Withington" <ptw@callitrope.com> wrote in message
B7EBC337.17AB9%ptw@callitrope.com">news:B7EBC337.17AB9%ptw@callitrope.com...
> Neelakantan Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu on  2001-10-10 22:00 wrote:
>
> > It would be nice if a Dylan compiler could reject the method
> > quux(<float>) as having a different keyword argument list than the
> > generic function declaration. This would permit the overhead of
> > keyword arguments to get optimized away every time, since the compiler
> > would know that keywords always come in the same order.
>
> I don't follow that.  The compiler could assign a fixed order to the
> keywords for argument passing, it's just that the methods need to assign
> defaults in the correct order.

I'm pretty sure the the FunO compiler does exactly the optimization
that Tucker refers to, FWIW.  I don't know how often this optimization
actually fires, in practice.

• Re: Is Dylan a functional language?
• From: P T Withington <ptw@callitrope.com>

• Prev: Some thoughts on using Dylan
• Next: Re: Is Dylan a functional language?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread