on goto
in [ASM]
|
From: Robert Redelmeier on 7 May 2010 13:42 In alt.lang.asm [FUp set] Keith Thompson <kst-u(a)mib.org> wrote in part: > "Daniel T." <daniel_t(a)earthlink.net> writes: >> I seriously proposed it. I think it is the best solution >> for the job (not your code specifically of course, but >> the idea of a single loop traversing a single container.) > > Can a container contain another container, which in turn > contains another container? If so, isn't a nested loop > the most natural way to traverse the elements? Natural, perhaps. Not necessarily the most efficient. Index calculations can be a significant component of multiply nested structures [multi-d arrays]. For many operations, the order of processing is unimportant so why not rip through it in memory order rather than a big game of RAM hopscotch? -- Robert
From: Daniel T. on 7 May 2010 14:33 Keith Thompson <kst-u(a)mib.org> wrote: > "Daniel T." <daniel_t(a)earthlink.net> writes: > > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6 May, 08:50, Keith Thompson <ks...(a)mib.org> wrote: > > > > > > > The original problem is to traverse a 3-dimensional array. A triple > > > > nested loop is the most obvious way to do that. There might be > > > > some advantages in converting it to a single loop, but clarity > > > > isn't one of them, at least in this case. > > > > > > I considered submitting a single loop solution as a joke. It never > > > crossed my mind someone would seriusly propose it! > > > > I seriously proposed it. I think it is the best solution for the job > > (not your code specifically of course, but the idea of a single loop > > traversing a single container.) > > Can a container contain another container, which in turn contains > another container? If so, isn't a nested loop the most natural way to > traverse the elements? Then you would need an infinite number of find functions, one for each dimension count. (i.e., a find for 1D arrays, a find for 2D arrays, a find for 3D arrays, a find for 4D arrays, etc.) That's silly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity
From: wolfgang kern on 7 May 2010 14:32 Nathan tried to convince HLL-folks :) .... > Please pardon any butchering of C++ syntax in my pseudo snippet above > -- I totally lack any C++ training. But we alt.lang.asm folk *do* > have an inkling of how to actually code our way out of a paper bag... > I do believe. Ok Nate, we had enough discussions on this matter since HLLs entered our progamming world ... We better give up arguing and let the 'faster' programmers be proud of their 'maintainable/foolproof-readable' sources which are awful detours with "abstraction layers" while the few hardware freaks like me work on "really existing things" :) I don't like to start a war of flames or to pick on any programmers choice for HLL. But there might be a good reason for Asm-groups are apart from c/c+-/etc..-groups. __ wolfgang I don't 'believe', but I 'know !' (now at least how my code affects any given hardware)
From: Lie Ryan on 7 May 2010 20:39 On 05/08/10 04:33, Daniel T. wrote: > Keith Thompson <kst-u(a)mib.org> wrote: >> "Daniel T." <daniel_t(a)earthlink.net> writes: >>> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6 May, 08:50, Keith Thompson <ks...(a)mib.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The original problem is to traverse a 3-dimensional array. A triple >>>>> nested loop is the most obvious way to do that. There might be >>>>> some advantages in converting it to a single loop, but clarity >>>>> isn't one of them, at least in this case. >>>> >>>> I considered submitting a single loop solution as a joke. It never >>>> crossed my mind someone would seriusly propose it! >>> >>> I seriously proposed it. I think it is the best solution for the job >>> (not your code specifically of course, but the idea of a single loop >>> traversing a single container.) >> >> Can a container contain another container, which in turn contains >> another container? If so, isn't a nested loop the most natural way to >> traverse the elements? > > Then you would need an infinite number of find functions, one for each > dimension count. (i.e., a find for 1D arrays, a find for 2D arrays, a > find for 3D arrays, a find for 4D arrays, etc.) That's silly. I've never heard of any programming languages that doesn't support recursion.
From: Lie Ryan on 7 May 2010 20:41
On 05/08/10 10:39, Lie Ryan wrote: > On 05/08/10 04:33, Daniel T. wrote: >> Keith Thompson <kst-u(a)mib.org> wrote: >>> "Daniel T." <daniel_t(a)earthlink.net> writes: >>>> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6 May, 08:50, Keith Thompson <ks...(a)mib.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The original problem is to traverse a 3-dimensional array. A triple >>>>>> nested loop is the most obvious way to do that. There might be >>>>>> some advantages in converting it to a single loop, but clarity >>>>>> isn't one of them, at least in this case. >>>>> >>>>> I considered submitting a single loop solution as a joke. It never >>>>> crossed my mind someone would seriusly propose it! >>>> >>>> I seriously proposed it. I think it is the best solution for the job >>>> (not your code specifically of course, but the idea of a single loop >>>> traversing a single container.) >>> >>> Can a container contain another container, which in turn contains >>> another container? If so, isn't a nested loop the most natural way to >>> traverse the elements? >> >> Then you would need an infinite number of find functions, one for each >> dimension count. (i.e., a find for 1D arrays, a find for 2D arrays, a >> find for 3D arrays, a find for 4D arrays, etc.) That's silly. > > I've never heard of any programming languages that doesn't support > recursion. except for assembly, perhaps... or some very ancient or jokular languages |