Almond Petrofsky <Almond@Petrofsky.Berkeley.CA.US> wrote:
+---------------
| rpw3@rigden.engr.sgi.com (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
-----
Rob Warnock, 8L-855 rpw3@sgi.com
Applied Networking http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. FAX: 650-964-0811
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA