Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: How to make a language downward-extensible?
Message-ID: <7976@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 2 Oct 90 21:03:36 GMT
References: <7935@scolex.sco.COM> <29047:Sep2816:51:1290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <7950@scolex.sco.COM> <18718:Oct120:03:0090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Reply-To: seanf (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 25


In article <18718:Oct120:03:0090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>Agreed, that would be a real mess, like the current ifdef situation. See
>my first quickpick example.

Hmm.  Hold on.  I just reread your original article, and read this one.  I
think I almost understand what you're trying to say.

You want things such that someone can describe an algorithm, in more or less
generic terms, as well as a "better" replacement algorithm, and have the
compiler automagically replace it?

Ok.  *That* I understand (why didn't you say that?).

I am not certain of this, but I think there has been some success in that
area.  If this *is* what you mean, then comp.compilers would be a good place
to (briefly) continue the discussion, since that's where those types hang
out.

-- 
-----------------+
Sean Eric Fagan  | "Never knock on Death's door:  ring the bell and 
seanf@sco.COM    |   run away!  Death really hates that!"
uunet!sco!seanf  |     -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor")
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.