using an FPGA to emulate a vintage computer
in [FPGA]
|
From: (see below) on 23 Feb 2010 18:04 On 23/02/2010 22:35, in article hm1l73$q4q$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, "Charles Richmond" <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: > (see below) wrote: >> On 23/02/2010 17:48, in article >> 4178548f-5618-49dd-ad72-008bdb53ed3b(a)z25g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Eric >> Chomko" <pne.chomko(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >>> Speaking of ALGOL parameter passing, what's a "thunk"? >> >> A thunk is the anonymous function (pair) described above. >> > > A "thunk" was a method of implementing "call by name". Strangely, enough, that is precisely what I said. -- Bill Findlay <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk
From: John Francis on 23 Feb 2010 19:30 In article <C7AA0F62.137643%yaldnif.w(a)blueyonder.co.uk>, (see below) <yaldnif.w(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 23/02/2010 22:35, in article hm1l73$q4q$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, >"Charles Richmond" <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: > >> (see below) wrote: >>> On 23/02/2010 17:48, in article >>> 4178548f-5618-49dd-ad72-008bdb53ed3b(a)z25g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Eric >>> Chomko" <pne.chomko(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >>> >>>> Speaking of ALGOL parameter passing, what's a "thunk"? >>> >>> A thunk is the anonymous function (pair) described above. >>> >> >> A "thunk" was a method of implementing "call by name". > >Strangely, enough, that is precisely what I said. Or rather, to be pedantic, "what you had said, precisely".
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 23 Feb 2010 19:36 In comp.arch.fpga Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: > (see below) wrote: >> On 23/02/2010 17:48, in article >> 4178548f-5618-49dd-ad72-008bdb53ed3b(a)z25g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Eric >> Chomko" <pne.chomko(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >>> Speaking of ALGOL parameter passing, what's a "thunk"? >> A thunk is the anonymous function (pair) described above. > A "thunk" was a method of implementing "call by name". Much of the discussion about ALGOL, including this, is in the past tense. As ALGOL60 hasn't changed recently, and the compilers still exist, even if new ones aren't being written, it seems to me that present tense is fine. A "thunk" is a method of implementing "call by name". More to the hardware side, an archetecture still exists even if no implementations of it exist. (Though in most cases at least one still does.) The PDP8 still IS a 12 bit machine, even if you implement it in an FPGA. -- glen -- glen
From: Peter Flass on 24 Feb 2010 07:32 glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > > More to the hardware side, an archetecture still exists even > if no implementations of it exist. (Though in most cases at > least one still does.) The PDP8 still IS a 12 bit machine, > even if you implement it in an FPGA. > Glad to see I'm not the only one who puzzles over the correct tense;-) I tend to use past tense for something I don't think too much of, and present tense for stuff IO like.
From: Eric Chomko on 24 Feb 2010 14:17
On Feb 23, 5:37 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: > Charles Richmond wrote: > > (see below) wrote: > >> On 23/02/2010 17:48, in article > >> 4178548f-5618-49dd-ad72-008bdb53e...(a)z25g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Eric > >> Chomko" <pne.cho...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > >>> Speaking of ALGOL parameter passing, what's a "thunk"? > > >> A thunk is the anonymous function (pair) described above. > > > A "thunk" was a method of implementing "call by name". > > http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/t/thunk.html > Thanks for the above reference. It had everything except "throwing functions" as thunk, which is how I had heard it referenced. |