Subject: Re: non-LIFO closures?
From: Vassily Litvinov (vass@cs.washington.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 09 2001 - 21:32:50 PDT
Yes, this all is right. && indicates that the closure is (possibly)
non-LIFO; this is a performance hack. Typechecker doesn't distinguish those.
Vass
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Keunwoo Lee wrote:
> I recently discovered the skip_list data type in the standard library
> (pretty cool, btw). skip_list appears to use a comparison closure to sort
> its elements. I was under the impression that our current closure
> implementation breaks when we use them non-LIFO. How can objects like
> skip_list then save closures in fields? notes/thingsWeAreNotProudOf
> indicates that && closures work when non-LIFO. Are we relying on the
> client to use the && closure form? I guess our type checker does not
> distinguish between LIFO and non-LIFO closures?
>
> ~k.lee
_______________________________________________
Cecil mailing list
Cecil@cs.washington.edu
http://majordomo.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/cecil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 21:33:03 PDT