Subject: Re: data hygiene [Re: Why is Scheme not a Lisp?] From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:49:16 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Paul Dietz | I am not kidding. I admit I am failing to penetrate your confusion. Oh, I see. You already know the one true answer, so bothering to read what I post is not necessary to you. | I suggest you look up the compiler optimization called 'software | pipelining'. Arrogant dipshit. | What I'm suggesting it just an application of that well-known technique, | which stretches out and overlaps iterations so as to avoid stalls. CAN YOU WORK IT OUT FOR PLISTS, TOO? YES OR NO? | In this case the alist algorithm can be more effectively pipelined | because it has more work off the critical path than the plist algorithm. No, this is simply _wrong_. Just get it, will you? | They are not the same, Mr. Naggum. The dependency between the CAR and | the CAAR is not on the critical path. Really? | We can wait several iterations between computing (CAR X) (for some cell | X) before we compute (CAAR X). We *cannot* do the same thing for the CDR | and the CDDR. Yes, it is _exactly_ the same thing. Why do you keep claiming this only for alists? You have not worked it out for plists, so you have no clue what you are talking about. What you have done for alists, can be done for plists. Just try it out, and you will see how simple this really is! /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.