Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!fluke!bhaskar
From: bhaskar@fluke.UUCP (K.S. Bhaskar)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Why displays are always faster than static links
Message-ID: <779@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Oct-83 20:54:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax2.779
Posted: Mon Oct 24 20:54:27 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Oct-83 06:48:35 EDT
References: <3731@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Everett, Wash
Lines: 9

yes, i also used the display optimization technique mentioned in an
interpreter that i wrote some years ago, and, like all hackers, i
(re-)invented it from scratch!  actually, maybe i am missing something, but
with any machine with a reasonable stack architecture (which eliminates only
one major line of machines), saving and restoring a display should actually
take less work than setting up a static link, since displays are global and
the static scope level of a procedure is known at compile-time and is constant.

{allegra,lbl-csam,microsoft,sb1,uw-beaver}!fluke!bhaskar