Return-Path: <john.harrison-request@uk.ac.cam.cl>
Delivery-Date: 
Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.2);
          Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:23:35 +0000
Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA17527;
          Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:06:42 -0800
Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Precedence: bulk
Received: from Maui.CS.UCLA.EDU by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA17522;
          Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:06:34 -0800
Received: from LocalHost.cs.ucla.edu 
          by maui.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61d+YP/3.21) id AA10298;
          Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:06:02 -0800
Message-Id: <9212160906.AA10298@maui.cs.ucla.edu>
To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Subject: In-line quotations (WAS: HELP: deleting assumption)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:06:01 PST
From: chou@edu.ucla.cs

Tom Melham wrote:

    There are, by the way, reasons why one should avoid using
    in-line quotations (using antiquotations as well) within code.
    Not least, it is (in theory) inefficient, as it involves the parser.

Can't the parsing be done, once and for all, when the code is parsed?
Consider, for instance, "^p=^q".  Can't it be parsed into something
equivalent to mk_eq(p,q) so that when the code is executed, the
parser will no longer be needed?

- Ching Tsun