The LL language. [arf6]
Tue, 27 Apr 93 14:18:16 MET DST
>> Even though it may be easier to use no. 1, I belive it would be slower.
>> The tree would have to do lots of "strcpm" to chose the path to the compiled
>> code, while an integer represenation as in no. 2 would only need a "cmp".
>> I'm no language guru so I don't actually now myself, but at least it seems
>> as no. 2. would be faster.
Of course I meant I preferred the binary solution, for I hate text-coded data.
Please excuse for getting mixed up with numbers.
Moreover, I'd like host internal representation to use direct rountine
pointers rather than numbers (useful in disk representation and easier to
compress). A LLL loader module will translate module numbers into system
pointers. As usual a text format will be adopted for human interaction.