On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
> > interesting that this should come up here, as it (separate layout) > presents another opportunity for partial opacity, that is 2 views of a > datatype with the same layout, one of which is missing fields > producing an opaque hole in the datatype, useful and worth the effort > i'm not sure... Not so. The whole point of separating layout is that it makes layout orthogonal to [logical] field definition. As a matter of practice, all languages that support this actually have a default layout model, that the separate layout declaration can override. It's a static error for two layout definitions to disagree in most such languages. Multiple definitions would lead to outcomes in which two different compilation units might violate type safety. Beyond that, can be a hard error to debug. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
