[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu*Subject*: Re: Scheme Digest #13*From*: Krulwich-Bruce@yale-zoo.arpa (Bruce Krulwich)*Date*: Tue ,22 Nov 88 11:37:21 EDT*Organization*: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158*References*: <8811212057.AA00314@theory.LCS.MIT.EDU>, <8811212337.AA01324@toucan.LCS.MIT.EDU>*Sender*: scheme-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu

In article <8811212337.AA01324@toucan.LCS.MIT.EDU>, bard@THEORY writes: >If the typical program structure is LISP-like, it is a long sequence of short >function declarations followed by a body: > LET x1 = m1 IN > LET x2 = m2 IN > ... > LET xk = mk IN > n >which is indeed a deeply nested term, although not quite of the form above. > >All this proves is that you should do something in a way other than the >theoretician's straightforward translation of LET. Not necessarily. A better solution (if it works) is working on optimizing nested terms. This will help efficiency in the general case, not just in the case of LET. (This is the T/Orbit approach.) Bruce Krulwich

**References**:**Scheme Digest #13***From:*bard@theory.lcs.mit.edu

- Prev by Date:
**Scheme Digest #13** - Next by Date:
**large or long-running T pgms?** - Previous by thread:
**Scheme Digest #13** - Next by thread:
**large or long-running T pgms?** - Index(es):