[bitc-dev] Semantics of unboxed

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

I considered this. I concluded that a ref to an unboxed thing made no
sense. As long as this is true, I'm not convinced that there is a
difference even under side effects.

Example?

shap


On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 21:27, Mark Miller 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.