On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt, I don't mind you expressing your concerns or your philosophy, though > you really do need to learn how to differentiate assumptions from facts.
OK, lets try this again. Shap, in BitC as you currently envision it, under what circumstances, if any, will it be impossible to write a program at a certain type, without incurring implicit dynamic checks, even though the corresponding untyped program satisfies the semantics of the type in question? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
