On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Aren’t regions good for heap but problematic for static data ( and maybe > stack) ? tagging all static data would be expensive ( though static > immutable data is often const or readonly so maybe there is some way) > I don't see why - the tagging in question happens entirely at compile time; it's merely a labelling discipline. Yes, there are languages in which there is a first-class notion of a region at run time (typically a heap region). That's a fine idea, but it's also a great example of how the term "region" has come to be overloaded in the literature. > > Other collections should be indexable, and it should be possible to > construct nat-indexable collections that do not use arrays as their > implementation. But "vector as reference to array whose size is not part of > its type" is still a very useful concept. > > > > I suppose it depends on how dependable types work out eg the dynamic array > discussed in the ring buffer . If it is handled well by dependable types I > see no purpose for vectors in the language ( obviously it will be in the run > time) > Sorry, but do you mean *dependent* types? shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
