[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER
- To: Jim McDonald <jlm@lucid.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER
- From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 17:07:21 MDT
- Cc: Gray@dsg.csc.ti.com, KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com, CL-Compiler@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Jim McDonald <jlm@lucid.com>, Wed, 28 Sep 88 15:32:23 PDT
One of the nice things about Pitman's proposal is that it is general
enough so that you could use it to implement the kind of rule-based
approach you describe. I tend to agree with Pitman that this is an
advanced feature, and that people who use it will be willing and able
to do that kind of thing.
I suppose we could make this like DEFSETF and provide 10 different
ways of specifying the same transformation, but that really seems like
needless complexity. Also, while I think that just about all
compilers do some kind of pattern-matching transformations, everybody
seems to use a different technique and syntax for specifying them, and
we'd probably get into religious wars if we tried to standardize one
or another of them. (I know of at least a half-dozen different ones
that have been used in the various compilers developed here at Utah
within the past 2 or 3 years!)
-Sandra
-------