[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FORMAT
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: More FORMAT
- From: Don Morrison <dfm@JASPER.PALLADIAN.COM>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 87 01:01 EDT
- Cc: Moon@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <8705192222.AA05902@vaxa.isi.edu>
- Reply-to: Don Morrison <DFM%JASPER@LIVE-OAK.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 19 May 87 15:22:17 PDT
From: Richard Berman <email@example.com>
I hope there is a way to have guaranteed non-adjustable arrays!
Why? Is there any thing that non-adjustable arrays are good for the adjustable
arrays are not? I thought it was just that you paid a performance hit for
adjustability in some (typically non-special-microcode) implementations.