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

I was merely saying that we must avoid deciding the semantics in a way
that prevents a runtime-varying literal from being constructed


Reply via email to