Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: A comment on language wars. Message-ID: <8O=9X44@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 14 Mar 91 20:54:20 GMT References: <2400032@otter.hpl.hp.com> <-K.9TE3@xds13.ferranti.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 18 In article markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu writes: > Yes. But note that the code for the procedure is built once; only the > environment needs to be built at runtime, assuming that any > environment needs to be built at all (the compiler may determine that > some procedures don't need an environment). OK, so there's where the semantics of the interpreter are implemented, in the bits and peices that build and maintain these environments without bothering the programmer. As an aside, a couple people in mail have assumed that I think this interpreter is a *bad thing*. Not at all. It's something that has to be implemented in many programs anyway (think of printf, for example, or the case statements built by Lex and Yacc), and it opens up all sorts of possibilities. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"