On Jan 19, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > To flesh the attribute idea out, here's a possible spec. Mentions > CONSTANT_Dynamic for now, and would be modified in the future to name other > constant types that allow cycles. > > Is this a happy solution to the problems raised in previous discussions about > constant cycles? Any new problems introduced?
Yes, this is about what I had in mind when I made the suggestion of an acyclicity proof. It reads well and looks like it would do the job. I like the touch of assigning zero to a missing condy; that gracefully covers the many non-recursive cases. Like Karen, I assume this is not an addendum to the final "minimal condy" spec you sent out. — John
