> De: "John Rose" <[email protected]> > À: "Remi Forax" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Karen Kinnear" <[email protected]>, "valhalla-spec-experts" > <[email protected]> > Envoyé: Jeudi 31 Janvier 2019 19:05:33 > Objet: Re: An example of substituability test that is recursive
> On Jan 31, 2019, at 6:34 AM, [ mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] > wrote: >> The other solution is to say that == should do an upcall to equals (after the >> null checking and the class checking), if equals throw a StackOverflow, it's >> the expected behavior because the user is in control of that behavior. > What you are doing here, I think, is exposing a requirement > that we *don't* use the control stack for recursion on subst. > testing (or hashing). That's a reasonable requirement. > It leads to a worklist algorithm for doing this tricky thing, > just like we had to do many times in the JIT. IMO that the other solution, solution 1: you use a worklist (and also perhaps a marking algorithm to avoid to crawle the DAG) solution 2: you claim it's too complex and you just let the user deal with it by calling equals() (and provide a way for a user to call the default subst). Rémi
