http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10819
--- Comment #7 from Peter Alexander <peter.alexander...@gmail.com> 2013-08-31 03:53:53 PDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > This is probably total overkill, but what about instead of mangling to > __lambda > + an incrementing integer, replace the integer with the SHA hash of the > lambda's AST tree? As Andrei said, we cater only to the case where the two > lambdas are token-for-token identical, because the general problem of > equivalence between two arbitrary lambdas is uncomputable. That works but is it OK for the lambda type to not have a module? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------