Subject: Re: problem /w palindroms
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: 1998/11/20
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Message-ID: <732v3c$>
Almond Petrofsky  <Almond@Petrofsky.Berkeley.CA.US> wrote:
| (Rob Warnock) writes:
| > Indeed. Assuming that "reverse" and "equal?" are both efficiently
| > coded as primitives which don't allocate memory,
| How could reverse not allocate memory?  The spec is "Returns a newly
| allocated list...".

Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say something like "...which don't
allocate memory (other than, of course, the conses required for the
result of 'reverse')...".

The intent was to compare a "good" reverse against an implementation
in which *any* call allocated (at least some) heap, and show that the
former was (probably) better.


Rob Warnock, 8L-855
Applied Networking
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		Phone: 650-933-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.		FAX: 650-964-0811
Mountain View, CA  94043	PP-ASEL-IA