On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 February 2015 at 23:05, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: >> To me, you've stretched the usual idea of subtyping because you seem >> to effectively require specialization and/or inlining to avoid the >> coercions that come with naive subsumption. This is what we were >> consistently miscommunicating about before though, so maybe you don't >> agree. > > Subtyping is a type-system only relation, and it has nothing to do with > whatever process the compiler is actually doing. All we require of the type > relation is that it only allows types that the compiler will produce correct > results for (soundness). That is all, it doesn't matter if the compiler is > specialising, generalising, or performing some other strange operation.
OK, fine. So you are stretching the usual set of implementation techniques for subtyping. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
