Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from May 2008
On 2008 May 17, at 4:10, Carl Mäsak wrote: > Whether we're risking the loss of important compiler optimizations by > allowing overriding of variable RO-ness is not for me to say, that's > up to the compiler writers around here. It seems to me you make it > sound worse than it really is, that optimizations can still be made in > many cases, and that a programmer who turns off RO stricture simply > takes a calculated risk. The compiler should in fact assume that "is ro" is a hard fact; if the programmer chooses to override, on her own head be it. Examples using other existing languages: GHC doesn't compromise its optimization rules just because someone might be using unsafePerformIO (this is in fact quite similar as unsafePerformIO means a presumed read-only expression can vary at runtime) or unsafeCoerce#. gcc doesn't compromise its just because someone might use an asm() to do something naughty where the C / C++ layer can't see it. Etc. > I also came to think about this relevant quote from Jamie Zawinski: Java is a remarkable example of how to do it wrong, for many values of "it". -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NHThread Previous | Thread Next