Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!lanl!lambda!jlg
From: jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Cheap implementations of languages (Re: Pointers and poor implementations (was: Re: JLG's flogging ...))
Message-ID: <14338@lambda.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 90 02:21:52 GMT
References: <MEISSNER.90Apr11112529@curley.osf.org>
Lines: 14

From article <MEISSNER.90Apr11112529@curley.osf.org>, by meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner):
> [...]
> Again no.  To implement arrays with static bounds, you only need to
> keep the bounds (as integer constants) within the symbol table.  For
> full run-time dimensionable arrays, you must keep around an indication
> that the array is dynamic, and where the bound is stored.  You must
> expand this bound expression within the tree as you are evaluating
> arrays and such.

Hmm.  That's how I had in mind doing ALL array references.  I expect the
constant folding optimization to find out later that the bounds of
a static array are fixed.  I don't like to do things twice.

J. Giles