Name and pointer unnecessary duplication

Post #191,968 by tablizer 1/27/05 1:12:22 PM Reply	Name and pointer unnecessary duplication A function name and pointer are generally duplicated references to the same information. You essentially have 2 primary keys. Now maybe it is done for speed, but otherwise is a sloppy or compromized theoretical arrangment. except that, in both cases, you seem to want the language to guess in the absence of information There is no need for "guessing" if the duplication is removed. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #191,977 by admin 1/27/05 1:48:33 PM Reply	No, it isn't duplicated. The function "pointer" is actually an object that contains a lot more information than a simple string can convey. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #192,160 by tablizer 1/28/05 7:27:07 PM Reply	references versus the record itself The function "pointer" is actually an object that contains a lot more information than a simple string can convey. The string is like an ID that points to (references) a record, not the record itself. If it requires more, then make it an associative array, but I don't see a need for that so far either. Someone below suggested that more is needed to implement closures. Personally I have not seen a slam-dunk justification for closures. They may simplify code a few percent at most. We had a huge debate here about this once and I see no need to repeat it again. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #192,003 by FuManChu 1/27/05 2:54:20 PM Reply	...and the duplication is necessary. Once you realize that it's not just 2 copies, but n copies. In this way, you can have multiple bindings to the same object, to be used in different descriptive contexts (with its own semantics tht map to the appropriate problem domain). A local namespace can have a named reference to the object. A list can have an anonymous, but indexed, reference to the object. A hashmap/dictionary can possess a named reference which approaches worst-case O(n) lookup on the name, instead of on the value (the function pointer). In other words, there's a reason we use variable names instead of register or memory addresses.
Post #192,054 by ben_tilly 1/27/05 11:34:17 PM Reply	You clearly do not know what a closure is If you can figure out the following piece of code, then you'll understand how there can be many different copies of a function, all slightly distinct. \nuse strict;\n\nnested_for(\n sub {print "@_\\n";},\n [1..2], ['a'..'c'], ['A'..'D']\n);\n\nsub nested_for {\n ret_iter(@_)->();\n}\n\nsub ret_iter {\n my $fn = shift;\n my $range = shift;\n my $sub = sub {$fn->($_, @_) for @$range};\n return @_ ? ret_iter($sub, @_) : $sub;\n}\n Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!