[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Date: Mon, 5 Sep 88 15:38:42 PDT
 From: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)

> For me, discussing the subject in terms of permitting the compiler
> to "wire in" ("bind names", etc.) information makes more sense and
> is less restrictive than permitting the ocmpiler to assume that the
> same "information" will be present at runtime.

Yes, that is another way to look at it.  However, not all compilers
will actually "wire in" all the information they are permitted to, and
instead rely on the definitions of types, functions, etc. as they
exist at runtime.  In order to get the same behavior in all
implementations, it's up to the user to make sure that the same
definitions are present at run time as at compile time.  I think that
something I didn't quite make clear in my original draft is that it
"is an error" if the things listed in section 2 are not defined