On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So I started a note intending to ask where mutability constraint > annotations > > should be allowed, and investigating various options. It was *amazing* > how > > fast I ran into cases where two completely reasonable understandings led > > immediately to conflicts. All cases below are shallow unless otherwise > > noted, and I'm only considering unboxed types. So consider the difference > > (if any) between S1 and S2. > > silly question, for the purpose of this discussion is the following > statement from the spec binding, > It took me several reads to figure out what the question was here. The answer is "no". The current specification of mutability handling has turned out not to be workable. The purpose of the current and ongoing discussion is to figure out what we should do about it. Jonathan
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
