Subject: Re: Denotational Semantics of R5RS vs extra pointers
From: rpw3@rigden.engr.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Date: 26 Sep 2001 04:07:06 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Message-ID: <9ork9a$moc49$1@fido.engr.sgi.com>
Bill Richter  <richter@banach.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
+---------------
| That's what I thought a list was, and I'm happy to box 'n pointer it:
| 
| .-------------------.     .-------------------.        
| |          |        |     |          |        |        
| |  alpha_1 | beta_1 ----> |  alpha_2 | beta_2 ----> ...
| |    |     |        |     |    |     |        |        
| .----|--------------.     .----|--------------.        
|      |                         |
|      V                         V
|     e_1                       e_2
| 
|           .-------------------.  
|           |          |        |  
| ... --->  |  alpha_n | beta_n ----> null 
|           |    |     |        |  
|           .----|--------------.  
|                |                 
|                V                 
|               e_n    
| 
| But this is much less storage I think than EIAP folks want.
+---------------

What makes you you say that? That's exactly the same box & pointer
diagram EIAP people use. Each box contains one pointer (where a
cons cells is two boxes, exactly as you've shown). End of story.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, 30-3-510		<rpw3@sgi.com>
SGI Network Engineering		<http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/> [R.I.P.]
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA  94043	PP-ASEL-IA

[Note: aaanalyst@sgi.com and zedwatch@sgi.com aren't for humans ]