Talk:Parent pointer tree
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Use of saguaro stack for multitasking[edit]
The first documented use of a saguaro stack that I'm aware of was on the Burroughs B6500[1][2], where the stacks for various tasks in a program formed a tree structure, with links to stack frames on the parent stacks for nested blocks.
References
- ^ Organick, Elliot I. (1973). Computer System Organization The B5700/B6700 series (despite the title, the book does not cover the B5x00.) (PDF). Academic Press.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|separator=ignored (help) - ^ Burroughs (September 1969). Burroughs B6500 Information Processing System Reference Manual (PDF). 1043676.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|separator=ignored (help)
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- So while the term "spaghetti stack" (which, if I understand it correctly, may not even be a tree) may still be "closely associated with implementations of programming languages that support continuations", the "Suguaro Stack System" is not at all related to continuations. The fact that this article clumps those structures together is really unhelpful and confusing. This article needs some major cleanup. --87.212.167.60 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, I didn't new the term spaghetti stack before. The only use of the word spaghetti in programming known to me, referred to a way to write programs using lots of GOTOs, that had a negative impact in programming based on unstructured diagrams that are not planar graphs, i.e. they can't be drawn without crossing the lines. That changed with the so called structured programming languages which made use GOTOs practically unnecessary, because they had if-then-else, while-do and similar structured statements.
- I did not gave a depth read about this structure, but it seems a structure which has stacks as elements which seems a planar graph, and indeed structured. I don't see a reason to call such structure spaghetti, because to me, given the context referred above, has a connotation of something complicated, disordered, messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.124.227.62 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
What model does Smalltalk use?[edit]
We have an inconsistency I think. This page says:
Examples of languages that use spaghetti stacks are:
- ...
- Languages where the execution stack can be inspected and modified at runtime such as Smalltalk
...and on the other hand, Closure (computer science) says:
Since that call has already returned and the Smalltalk method invocation model does not follow the spaghetti stack discipline to allow multiple returns, this operation results in an error.
I don't know enough about Smalltalk to tell which one is right. --Doradus (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguating reference — but the text does not match[edit]
I've tried to "disambiguate" a citation to a volume of conference proceedings by guessing which paper might have been meant. The current citation, in essence, cannot be verified. The citation was introduced here, and my change is here. Subsequently, I moved the citation to another sentence. In fact, the paper does describe "kind-of" the same data structure, but with quite a few subtle variations (in fact, what the next paragraph describes is closer to Sec. 4.1, the "garbage-collection" strategy, rather than a spaghetti stack; spaghetti stacks are described by the cited paper[1] as using their own implementation of garbage collection.
However, I don't have time to rewrite this page based on the cited article, and it's just one article — but I don't have time to survey articles on the topic.
--Blaisorblade (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Clinger, W.; Hartheimer, A.; Ost, E. (1988). "Implementation strategies for continuations". Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on LISP and functional programming - LFP '88. pp. 124–131. doi:10.1145/62678.62692. ISBN 089791273X.
Spelling of saguaro?[edit]
I've only seen references to cactus stacks as saguaro, and had never seen the spelling sahuaro until now. Is that a typo, and, if not, shouldn't the article use the more common spelling? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Spaghetti and Cactus stack[edit]
I've seen "spaghetti stack" mentioned in literature as a specific implementation technique for "cactus stacks"/"saguaro stacks". In other words, a "spaghetti stack" would be a type of "cactus stack", so it would be better to use "cactus stack" first.
But I don't fully grasp the misunderstandings that led to how the article was written in its current form, so I'll refrain from editing until I am more versed in this topic. However, a regular C compiler does definitely not create a spaghetti stack (a C-- compiler might, but that's a whole different language). Johan Hanson (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)