On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
The reason my proposal doesn't use subtyping is not because I think subtyping is not flexible enough. It's because I think it's too flexible! It allows things that I don't see how to implement without implicit allocations. Please don't ask me to repeat the example that we discussed all day. > 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
