Hi, I can't help but wonder whether the time taken to parse all your parameters to check whether they are the right type won't be longer than having several procedures.
Wolfgang > I'll make sure to respond right away in future, before I've fully > understood the subtleties and implications of your replies. :D > > I was digesting the reply. I've been neck deep in developing a USB keyboard > solution for the QL - a project that has become a multi-headed beast that > required getting into elements of the 8302/8049 relationship I just never > knew I'd have to think about. Also neck deep in fence building after a > neigborhood dog broke into the pen and killed many of my chickens. > > It does seem that coercion gives similar results - if everything is passed > as a string, it can be coerced however we'd like, as long as the data is > checked for validity. > > It does seem the functionality of overloading can be implemented in > roundabout yet still brief and readable ways. > > Thank you. > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Per Witte via Ql-Users < > ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com> wrote: > >> So sorry for wasting my time trying to answer your question. It wont happen >> again. >> >> On 21 June 2018 at 16:38, Per Witte <pjwi...@online.no> wrote: >> >>> Im not familiar with C++ overloading, but S*BASIC allows some "parametric >>> polymorphism", viz: >>> >>> dim x%(2): for i% = 0 to 2: x%(i%) = 9 - i% >>> Test 'abc', 2.99, x% >>> : >>> def proc Test(a, b%, c) >>> print a\ b% \ c, \ >>> enddef Test >>> : >>> Result: >>> abc >>> 2.99 >>> 9 8 7 >>> >>> The SBASIC compiler performs a number of additional passes to >> SuperBASIC's >>> parser, to end up with a much purer "executable". The compiled program is >>> not machine code, of course, it consists of fixed length tokens that >> still >>> need to be "interpreted". But all useless baggage has been eliminated >> from >>> the program flow, expressions teased into simple RPN steps, and locations >>> resolved to absolute addresses. So no, the size of the program or >> distance >>> to procedures does not effect the speed of execution. >>> >>> >>> On 20 June 2018 at 22:35, Dave Park via Ql-Users < >> ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> How hard would it be to extend sBASIC functions to support C++ style >>>> overloading? >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dave Park >>>> d...@sinclairql.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> QL-Users Mailing List >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> QL-Users Mailing List >> > > > _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
