[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Scheme Digest #13
- To: Scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu
- Subject: Scheme Digest #13
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Mon ,21 Nov 88 19:37:29 EDT
- In-reply-to: Automatic Scheme Digestifier's message of 20 NOV 88 00:02:32 EST <8811212057.AA00314@theory.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Worst-case lambda-expressions for this
> translation have deeply nested subexpressions and functions of many arguments
> - the nesting has to be proportional to the size of the program to get
> the quadratic effects, e.g. (backslash = lambda):
> \x1.\x2.\x3.\x4.\x5.(x5 ((x2 (x1 x4)) x3))
> Does this ever happen?
In more theoretical settings, at least,
LET x=m IN n
is identical to
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
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. What methods are actually
> > In any event, the SK compiler has a lot of work to do before it can match
> > even a fairly stupid supercombinator compiler, simply because it can be
> > forced to produce incredibly long code.
> Is this a particular SK compiler you're talking about? Has someone actually
> implemented the naive translation into just S and K? I'm not surprised it's
> no good.
The naive one. As I said before, I'm a theoretician (interested in
denotational semantics of lambda calculus) and woefully ignorant about
-- Bard Bloom