2) I still don't understand why you think these other methods of specialisation are not useable when you have a subtyping relationship in the type system?
If I have a relation S <: T all it says is I am free to use an S anywhere I might use a T, whether the reason I am able to do that is rewriting brackets in applications or any other mechanism. Keean. On 25 Feb 2015 00:19, "Matt Oliveri" <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's what I think the situation is in this discussion: > - Matt (me), Shap, and William are skeptical that subtyping can be > implemented without introducing allocations. > - Keean doesn't see how subtyping would make it any harder to avoid > introducing allocations. > - Pal has joined in, but I'm not sure what his take is. > - Matt Rice keeps bringing up SML records, and I'm not sure why. (Sorry, > Matt.) > - Everyone else has been silent for a while. > > Again this is what I think is the situation. It's how it seems to me. > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > But if I'm right, can we stop talking about subtyping for a while, and > tie up the other loose ends? The ones that are on my mind are > 1) deep vs. shallow arity variables vs. type constraints > 2) application-driven specialization without using subtyping > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
