On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > BitC *never* gets to rely on the optimizer to put things right. >> >> But Keean never actually said "optimization", Shap. You did. > > You are right. Keean never uses the term "optimizer". What he does instead > is assuming a stack-based rewriting that cannot be accounted for in the > semantics of any intermediate form that we commonly understand. He also > emphasizes that this rewriting is non-semantic.
What did he say that you interpret that way? It wouldn't make sense to consider it non-semantic if it's part of the type checker. > This makes it sound to me like this is a "compiler internal" rewriting that > cannot be expressed within the surface language. I thought his rewrites were on the source AST. But wait, why am I saying this stuff? That's his proposal. Anyway, I seem to remember him saying he was changing his proposal to use arity-abstract types after all. So I have no idea what he's doing now. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
