On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Sam Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:22:07PM -0700, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > Hmm. It occur to me that there may be a "middle position" on arity > handling. > > We could *record* the arity information for purposes of type computation, > > but *disregard* it for purposes of type compatibility. > [..] > > Does this smell like it might work? If so, then the whole thing becomes > > purely a matter of surface syntax. > > It sounds as though it could work, but what's the purpose? If the > programmer is worried about the heap then surely you *want* to be warned > that you're going to be allocating a closure, if you start doing the > above then you loose this complaint from the type system. > Yes and no. Such a procedure will not be typed as noalloc, for example, and the tuplization trick still works independent of this. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
