[bitc-dev] Semantics of unboxed

[EricNorthup]

MarkM wrote:
> Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > If this is really correct, then we can omit all consideration of
> > "boxedness" from the language semantics...
> 
> Until the language has side effects, EQ, or infinite rational trees
(cyclic 
> containment). Obviously, it would be strange to support unboxed cyclic 
> containment.

Can you elaborate on how side-effects muddle the picture?

And what you mean by "EQ" ?

I took what Shap wrote to mean "the langauge semantics can describe all
containment relationships as being 'boxed' -- and thus programmers don't
specify boxed/unboxed -- but the compiler is free to unbox things when
it is safe to do so."  And not a statement that "everything can be unboxed".

--Eric