Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:2126 comp.lang.c:14384 comp.lang.forth:674 comp.lang.fortran:1540 comp.lang.misc:2206 comp.arch:7367 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!orr From: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.forth,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch Subject: Re: Assembly or .... Message-ID: <1989@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 28 Nov 88 17:44:36 GMT References: <1388@aucs.UUCP> <729@convex.UUCP> <1961@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <6529@june.cs.washington.edu> <1031@l.cc.purdue.edu> Reply-To: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 30 In article <1031@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: ). I think that there would be great improvements if compilers were interactive. Not perhaps realised with low level languages like C and its ilk, but certainly realised in much higher level programming languages. Interactive isn't necessarily the best by the way, since it means you have to repeat yourself, and the decisions are not documented in the program. There is no reason why you can't have an "advice" command, that advises the compiler the best implementation. (Doesn't "advise" sound so much better than "pragma"?)