Re: Smart variables, dumb variables

[rm]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:35:29PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> >
> > > Read-onlyness should be a property of a variable that can be detected
> > > by the compiler so we wouldn't want to bury it only in the setter, I'd
> > > say.
> > 
> > For some kind of static integrity checking?
> 
> I had in mind that the compiler could use the bit to decide if it is
> allowed to inline some functions (such as '+', 'car', ...) but I no
> longer think that would be the right way.

Wouldn't that imply that certain functions will never be 'generic' ?

 Ralf 

> Also, it would be needed for dumb variables when there are no separate
> setter and getter flags, but I think we should have these two flags.
> 
> So let's forget about the read-only bit for now, I'd say.
> 
> -- 
> GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Guile-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel