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"?)