[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: Sun, 15 Jan 89 05:45:49 PST
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, cl-cleanup@Sail.Stanford.Edu
- In-reply-to: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM's message of 13 Jan 89 10:44 PST <890113-104513-3046@Xerox>
re: In any case, the fact that the standard ALLOWS implementation A to have a
funny upgrade strategy does not make it impossible for implementation B to
use reasonable compiler optimizations.
As long as implementation A doesn't pay any attention to the declarations
that implementation B is concerned about, then it is moot even to
consider "funny" upgrades. If A does pay attention to the declarations,
then those that work in B will break in A.
For the life of me, I can't understand why you are pressing this issue,
since it's pointless to write something into the standard that A won't
use and B can't use. So why not leave it simply at the state where we
specify what B _can_ use, and what A doesn't care about.
-- JonL --