Ah, I think I've finally got a glimse of what BrowserUk is smoking.
He appears to think that he can have subexpressions run in parallel by having the compiler know what the evaluation order is defined to be, and then instead of running the regular code in parallel (which can't guarantee evaluation order, obviously -- at least it is obvious to everyone but BrowserUk) but instead the compiler will analyse the code and run different code that will produce the same results as if the code were run in the defined order. (And he said it is impossible for a Perl optimizer to do some quite simple things, so I'm impressed that he thinks a Perl compiler can perform this astounding magic.)
Or, more likely, he is just stuck in a rut about how he is thinking about this and can't see that a few of his ideas just don't make any sense.
BrowserUk, you've dug into this argument too far. You aren't making sense and you should really take a break and come back to this with a less-tunneled view so you can hear several things that people have posted repeatedly (and either learn from them or respond to them in a way that addresses what was said -- and the latter would radically transform the field of computing, so good luck).
- tye
In reply to Re^27: Why is the execution order of subexpressions undefined? (magic ruts)
by tye
in thread Why is the execution order of subexpressions undefined?
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |