Michael Kay wrote:
Hi
One very minor observation: I think (though I would need
to verify by testing) that in Saxon this might perform
better if you added elements at the end rather than the
start. In particular, this might allow the "new" stack to
share underlying space with the "old" stack in many cases,
and to avoid physical copying.
Very interesting. I put the new element at the front,
actually because I thought it would avoid some copies...
I don't explicitely know why, I guess that comes from the
Lisp's cell model?
And if I remember well, sequences in Saxon are represented
by iterators (so one knows the front directly, not the end).
What should be the real Java object underlying the sequence
at the very end (the object that would require copy)?
(I seem to be unusual in that I think of the top of the
stack as being at the high-address end. Comes from years
of exposure to a hardware architecture that worked that
way.)
Doesn't seem unusual if you only think of a stack as a
"thing" you can apply pop, top and push to, with a few
relations between the state of the "thing" and those
functions :-)
Regards,
--drkm
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
http://mail.yahoo.fr
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--