comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: REDUCE

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: REDUCE [message #24404 is a reply to message #24403]

Thu, 29 March 2001 21:32

John-David T. Smith is currently offline

John-David T. Smith
Messages: 384
Registered: January 2000

Senior Member

Kenneth Mankoff wrote:
>
>> The question, to all you C-programmers: is there a better way?
> [snip]
>> ...the code logic to compute the maximum will be the same, both
>> symbolically for all types for many types, in the compiled code itself.
>
> Hi JD,
>
> hmmm... not 100% sure, but wouldn't c++ templates solve this problem?
>
> And for the cases where it is "symbolically" the same but not "compiled
> the same", I'm not sure what this means, but I'm guessing you would handle
> these cases with overloading your operators.
>
> Of course, C isn't C++, so this might not help.
>
> I can provide code examples and more info if you wish.

Thanks for the suggestion. I had thought of that option, but I don't know much
about templates, nor about linking C++ to IDL. I wonder whether the templates
are just similar to my super macro for creating a different version for each
type. Can you frame the maximum function I suggested in terms of a skeleton
template which would operate on all the data types?

My comment with respect to compiled and symbolic maybe wasn't clear. I really
just meant that you have this same code replicated over and over, with minor
changes in the types of the variables used, but otherwise logically and
symbolically intact. I can imagine the compiler emitting different code for,
e.g., multiplying two integers, vs. two floats, but I can also imagine other
types where the codes emitted are exactly the same. Obviously, you can't get
something for nothing, but if real repition exists within the compiled code, you
should be able to eliminate it somehow.

Thanks again,

JD

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: REDUCE By: John-David T. Smith on Mon, 02 April 2001 11:17
		Re: REDUCE By: Richard Younger on Sun, 01 April 2001 20:31
		Re: REDUCE By: John-David T. Smith on Sun, 01 April 2001 15:01
		Re: REDUCE By: Richard Younger on Sun, 01 April 2001 11:55
		Re: REDUCE By: Kenneth Mankoff on Thu, 29 March 2001 23:30
		Re: REDUCE By: John-David T. Smith on Thu, 29 March 2001 21:32
		Re: REDUCE By: Kenneth Mankoff on Thu, 29 March 2001 17:52
		Re: REDUCE By: Martin Schultz on Tue, 03 April 2001 01:08

Previous Topic:	Re: Execution halted
Next Topic:	wavelet

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 22:30:30 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.32196 seconds