My reason for asking was, I was wondering if an analysis of how frequently functions were called, and from where, could affect how quickly they would be stepped to. I have seen this behavior in SuperBASIC on JM/JS and achieved often useful gains in improvements by placing the most frequently called functions at the beginning or the program.
I was wondering if this was still true with the BASIC on SMSQ/Minerva. That let to the overloading question, which would allow the collapsing of many functions into a single function using polymorphism. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Jan Bredenbeek via Ql-Users < ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com> wrote: > On 20 June 2018 at 22:35, Dave Park via Ql-Users <ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com > > > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Separately, does the sBASIC in SMSQ or Minerva still scan for > > procedures/functions from the beginning of the program, so earlier > FN/PROCs > > have a speed advantage over later ones like in JM/JS? > > > SuperBASIC (JM/JS/Minerva) stores line numbers along with proc/fn names in > the name table and can search backward and forward for them in the program. > So it merely depends on how far away the proc/fn definition is from the > calling code in terms of lines. > I don't know how SBASIC handles this but as it is said to be more a > compiler than an interpreter it could be very well different (the most > efficient way would of course be to store addresses rather than line > numbers but this could break if the program is changed and then > CONTINUEd/RETRYd). > > Jan. > > -- > *Jan Bredenbeek* | Hilversum, NL | j...@bredenbeek.net > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > -- Dave Park d...@sinclairql.com _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
