On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > The second question: assuming that it IS important, can anyone identify a > corresponding type-safe pattern? I'm stumped on this one.
I think you forgot to qualify this with 'type-safe pattern someone would actually consider using.' assuming C, we could always pretend it's a functional language, I suppose one might be able to pass a function pointer of a nested function[1] to a private allocator thing, but then you're perfectly set up for alloca'd stuff being in scope along with locals which will still be in scope after the alloca'd stuff goes poof, and the fun references between the 2 will be. seems like it should be dismissed out of principle [1] gnu c extension http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Nested-Functions.html *shrug* _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
