On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:07 -0700, David Green wrote: > On 2008-Dec-2, at 12:33 pm, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 08:50 +0100, Carl Mäsak wrote: > >> Darren (>): > >>> How does one write anonymous value literals of those types? > >> Why is the latter method [conversion] insufficient for your needs? > > Efficiency reasons, among others. > > Surely the optimizer will perform conversions of constants at compile > time.
It would be nice to expect that (though I don't, actually) ... but the second half of my statement was at least as important. It also matters how this is handled for runtime expressions (literals that aren't constants). I was merely saying that we must avoid deciding the semantics in a way that prevents a runtime-varying literal from being constructed efficiently. -'f