Ah. Yes. That was the disconnect. Though I still don't know that I want an AST vector. When I rewrite AST trees later, it won't be a desirable retention mechanism.
Shap On Sunday, June 14, 2015, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think you mean union in the same sense I do. I am not talking > about a stack of type unions. > > I am talking about a stack that records unifications done (IE the > union-find links made) so that they can be undone on backtracking. > > Keean. > On 14 Jun 2015 1:31 pm, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> This is what the union-stack is for, storing the original pointer >>> addresses when you move bits of the tree around... >>> >> >> The union stack is, in some sense, the problem we are trying to get rid >> of! >> >> shap >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitc-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev >> >>
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
