Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!Krulwich-Bruce
From: Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Scheme Digest #8, Efficiency of Y
Message-ID: <43311@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 17 Nov 88 00:30:53 GMT
References: <8811161012.AA13091@kleph.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 14
In-reply-to: cph@KLEPH.AI.MIT.EDU (Chris Hanson)

In article <8811161012.AA13091@kleph.ai.mit.edu>, cph@KLEPH (Chris Hanson)
writes:
>Bill Rozas has expended no small effort in the MIT Scheme compiler to
>make the Y combinator produce good results, and these timings are
>evidence of that.  Still not perfect, but I believe Bill claims that
>he can make the output code identical given a bit more work.

Is there a particular reason why its worth a lot of effort to make Y
compile efficiently??  More the the point, does anyone have examples
of code that is more elegant (or better in some other way) than, say,
a simple recursive implementation??


Bruce