[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Re: Clause 10, Expression Evaluation
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:39:22 +0900, Thorsten Siebenborn <7_born@xxxxxx>
wrote:
I have attacked the image that it is impossible to test a Volvo
for testing a Porsche.
Maybe it would be better to think about my analogies instead
of blindly attacking them.
I say: Translated in computer languages there
*are* Volvos which can be tested to verify that the Porsche
will function.
Well, since it's my analogy, I have to say that's just wrong.
According to your description of FORTH, in the terms of my rather
simple analogy, FORTH doesn't allow PORSCHES, it only allows VOLVOS.
That's fine for FORTH, but has little to do with my comment.
And I added that these specifics Volvos are able
to use tools which are extraordinarily useful.
Let's not stretch analogies too far. Volvos don't "use tools".
Malcolm started his claim with ">>Furthermore<<,
it is not useful".
Obviously I didn't start anything with "Furthermore".
So the inherent inability of FORTRAN
You what?
to come up with a strict evaluation order is apparently not the
reason he came up with this image.
For high performance, requiring a strict evaluation order is
counter-productive! I don't see anything difficult to understand there.
In fact, I don't know what exactly Malcolm attacked
So why attack?
because his verdict is so general. I want to know what exactly is
futile/senseless/whatever. It could be insisting on strict
evaluation order, languages who support them, whatever.
I thought it was pretty obvious - I was attacking the whole idea of
having a special "go-slow" mode for debugging that isn't the same as
the mode used in production. I even wrote that!
I didn't even conceive of the idea that 754R should be limited to
FORTH-like languages, but I'm perfectly happy to attack that too
if it's being seriously considered(! which I doubt).
Cheers,
--
Malcolm Cohen, Nihon Numerical Algorithms Group KK, Tokyo, Japan.