On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 00:57 +0700, Constantine Plotnikov wrote: > I do not know if there will be the same complication in BitC because > foreign function interface and its interaction with storage model are > somewhat underspecified.
Actually, they are not. The semantics of foreign function interface are very consciously and deliberately excluded from the specification. The minute you step out to code written in another language, you step completely outside the BitC semantics, and the utility of BitC as a language for expressing verifiable code goes to zero. If this is what you wish to accomplish, use C. C will always be better at being C than BitC will ever be. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
