Yes from a language point of view it's not that hard , the compiler back end is quite a bit harder though eg the IR .
Is implicit conversions such a bad thing in general , ok I agree for C style but C# allows them provided the implicit operator never throws an exception or loses information . ( So short to int is valid but the reverse is not) it does keep a lot of ugly casts out of the code. Ben From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan S. Shapiro Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 3:49 AM To: Discussions about the BitC language Subject: Re: [bitc-dev] Bitc and Simd I'm going to hazard an uninformed guess on this: BitC already gives us enough overloading capabilities to handle most of what we need. We'll need to look at ternary operators like MUL-ADD in the mixfix handler at some point, but that doesn't seem intrinsically hard. We'll also clearly need to deal with explicit alignment and offsets. What we will not introduce is implicit conversion. That way lies insanity. shap No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3069 - Release Date: 08/14/10 02:34:00
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
