[bitc-dev] Semantics of unboxed
digitale at digitaleric.net
Wed Oct 20 22:13:20 EDT 2004
> 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
> containment). Obviously, it would be strange to support unboxed cyclic
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".
More information about the bitc-dev