Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!Krulwich-Bruce
From: Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Scheme Digest #13
Message-ID: <43797@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 22 Nov 88 15:37:21 GMT
References: <8811212057.AA00314@theory.LCS.MIT.EDU> <8811212337.AA01324@toucan.LCS.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: 19
In-reply-to: bard@THEORY.LCS.MIT.EDU

In article <8811212337.AA01324@toucan.LCS.MIT.EDU>, bard@THEORY writes:
>If the typical program structure is LISP-like, it is a long sequence of short
>function declarations followed by a body:
>  LET x1 = m1 IN 
>  LET x2 = m2 IN 
>  ...
>  LET xk = mk IN 
>  n
>which is indeed a deeply nested term, although not quite of the form above. 
>
>All this proves is that you should do something in a way other than the
>theoretician's straightforward translation of LET.  

Not necessarily.  A better solution (if it works) is working on optimizing
nested terms.  This will help efficiency in the general case, not just in the
case of LET.  (This is the T/Orbit approach.)


Bruce Krulwich