Re: RFC 214 (v1) Emit warnings and errors based on unoptimized code

[Nathan Torkington]

Simon Cozens writes:
> > Nice!
> Efficient!
> Practical!
> 
> Choose two.

I take this oblique comment to mean that it'd bloat the op-tree too
much?

I was thinking of this over lunch.  I want to be able to strip the
instruction sequence of line number, package, etc. information, in the
name of a smaller memory footprint and smaller distributed bytecode.
It'd make debugging tricky, but if there was still a sequence number
("error at opcode #1590") preserved, the user could produce an
unstripped executable and then use the sequence number to see where
the problem was.

Make sense?

Nat