[MLton-devel] Minamide's POPL '98 paper

[Stephen Weeks]

> A user-level library would be nice, but I don't think that Standard ML
> gives you a strong enough type-system to use it both correctly and
> efficiently.  You really need linearity in order to justify the
> mutation.

I agree, if you insist on static checking.  On the other hand, I don't
see any reason why we couldn't enforce the fill-a-hole-once condition
with dynamic tests in the library.  Of course, without linearity in
the compiler ILs we can't be as sure that the compiler doesn't screw
stuff up, but it doesn't seem any different to me than the situation
with array bounds checking (dynamic bounds checks, unsafe ILs).


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
MLton-devel mailing list
MLton-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mlton-devel