[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Naive T Design Questions Addendum
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 16:18:41 EDT
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 21:59:49 EDT
From: James J. Hunt <jjh at ll-vlsi.arpa>
7. Why not separate the concept of () and no entry in tables?
(I think you mean #F, not (), since absence of entry is indicated by a
false return from table-entry.) This is easily simulated given the
existing primitives, so it would be an unnecessary complication. E.g.
it would require the addition of something like a TABLE-HAS-ENTRY?
predicate, and it would require the addition of a separate procedure for
deleting entries (currently you can just store a #F).
This reminds me, I really liked (at first sight, anyway) the idea of
providing a separate failure continuation for things like this (of
which I gather there are many). The caller of something like
TABLE-ENTRY is almost certainly going to branch based on the returned
value anyway, so it seems like the failure-continuation approach
would be more efficient. Has this been thought about much?
Besides, the failure-continuation approach would be more suitable for
a (gasp! heresy) strongly-typed language. I know T will never become
one of THOSE, but I'm still curious what the impact would be like...
- From: Olin.Shivers@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU