On 4/9/2012 10:28 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> Huh? I don't think you are thinking this through. I write a library
> function:
>
> def faux-add(a, b) = { a + b }
>
> which is typed as
>
> Arith 'a => 'a x 'a -> 'a
>
> and I put that in a library. I basically can't compile this function
> at all until I know the instance of Arith, which isn't known until
> dynamic compile time.
You have a choice. You either implement this library function as (poor
C-syntax):
Value *FauxAdd(ArithRepr *tclass, Value *a, Value *b)
{
return tclass->plus_func(a, b);
}
Which obviously is slow unless you perform some global optimizations at
link stage.
The other option is to take your function as a C++ template, a cook-book
for how to implement something. faux-add would not be a value (since it
isn't a function), but it could be instantiated using a specific Arith
instance.
You could probably even do both, but if you did I think people would
like to be able to control it. For instance, you could use 'def
function' and 'def generic' (or any other syntax to distinguish the cases).
PKE
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
