Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!princeton!news.princeton.edu!blume
From: blume@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu (Matthias Blume)
Subject: Re: loop style
In-Reply-To: shivers@clark.lcs.mit.EDU's message of 17 Feb 1995 18:08:12 -0500
Message-ID: <BLUME.95Feb18002612@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu>
Originator: news@hedgehog.Princeton.EDU
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dynamic.cs.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <dig-Scheme-7.47@mc.lcs.mit.edu> <9502172305.AA14785@clark.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 05:26:12 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <9502172305.AA14785@clark.lcs.mit.edu> shivers@clark.lcs.mit.EDU (Olin Shivers) writes:

   Bullshit.

Ok, I guess I earned my reputation for sometimes being a bit
offensive, but this hits a new all-time low of politeness and style in
discussions on this group.  I do not feel like writing a serious
response to that.

   When you see a loop, you have a right to expect that its parameters
   express loop state

Says who?  Do I get jailed if I infringe this?

   The compiler efficiency argument is secondary. Essentially, it boils down
   to being able to see a property with a simple static analysis
   versus requiring a complex flow-analysis.

Go back.  Read what I wrote.  I agreed with you on the answer to the
main question.  The efficiency argument is indeed secondary, and
that's what I said myself.  I just pointed out that when you look into
efficiency you might find some unpleasant surprises -- like sometimes
getting slower code when pulling the constants out of the loop.

--
-Matthias
