[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: ARRAY-TYPE-ELEMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS (Version 9)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Issue: ARRAY-TYPE-ELEMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS (Version 9)
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 23:31:12 PST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@Sail.Stanford.Edu
- In-reply-to: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM's message of 11 Jan 89 21:34 PST <890111-213644-11560@Xerox>
re: Why would Lucid oppose allowing other
implementors to take a different implementation strategy? Certainly your
compiler optimizations could continue to work based on your assertions
about your own array implementation types.
Your suggestion was to permit a (gratuitous) variation on upgrading
which would make reasonable compiler optimization impossible on portable
programs. The compiler optimization can only work by assuming that
there are no variations beyond the ones it "knows" about. It is
reasonable to ask for declarations about "simpleness" and about element
type; but is is not reasonable to require declarations on size.
Anyway, I though moon already put the scotch on this whole line of inquiry
due to the type separateness of strings and bit-vectors.
-- JonL --