On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Sandro Magi <[email protected]> wrote: > It is a common pattern in the .NET world, so O-classes may not be an > appropriate foundation for .NET integration....
I think that's what I've been saying all along. > 2. This offset is only needed to maintain separate compilation, where > you'd be using dictionaries and only abstract class information is > available at the access point; if you're specializing the whole program > as you had planned to do previously... That was a technique used by a particular implementation. Once generalized objects are introduced it ceases to be practicaly, and it probably isn't even practical just for type classes. Generics over unboxed types are well known to cause code explosion problems. > For maximum abstraction with separate compilation, you need the > indirection, or some kind of runtime specialization to amortize the > cost, ie. JIT.... Yes. And for this reason I've been looking at abstract type systems for machine-level code as well. Gotta go now. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
