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

# Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)

- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 11:14:47 PDT
- From:

    Chuck Adams spaketh:
    Ben Jackson drew these hieroglyphs:
    <> > Hence list[n..] would be equivalent to list[n..length(list)], except it
    <> > should save the extra time of evaluating length(list).
    <>
    <> It would save you the extra time of *typing* length(list).  The length
    <> will still have to be evaluated.  In either case it's O(1), since list[0]
    <> contains the length (it's inaccessible from MOOcode).  I don't think you
    <> can argue that this would be a performance improvement.
    <
    < well, it'd shave off a few steps, not having to deal with an explicit
    < builtin call, but that already got covered.  just want get my opinion
    < out:
    <
    < the syntax kind of bugs me.  i can see where it comes from, but it
    < does look like a typo.  my preference would be for foo[1..$] as is
    < specified in the "to-do" list for the LamdaMOO server.

    On another somewhat related note, assuming [1..$] existed, you could then
    have the compiler use peep-hole optimization and replace certain things in
    the parse tree (such as list[1..length(list)] with list[1..$]).  This isn't
    the greatest example of optimizing in this means, but it could happen.

    Why am I saying this?  Dunno, it just occured to me :)

    -Brandon/Lynx-

Follow-Ups:

- Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)

- From: Kai Storbeck <kais@dds.nl>

- Prev: Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)
- Next: Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index