2010/3/13 Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>: > Bjarne Steensgaard recently asked me a question about BitC unboxed unions > that revealed a design problem. I'ld appreciate thoughts about whether the > fixes I see are acceptable, or if not, whether we should drop the language > feature that raises the problem.
Nice catch. As both fixes are entirely acceptable, I see no reason to get rid of unboxed unions. Of course, the first approach does have the implication that the tag field must have space for a reserved bit, perhaps making representing an external data structure as a defrepr impossible in some very limited number of cases. I favor the second approach. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
