Of arguing that the absence of data motivates a particular assumption.
In this case it has to do with yield checking (which, incidentally, we
do have some data on from the work in other JITs, and it's seldom a cost
center).
Elsewhere you seem to be frustrated that in the absence of data to the
contrary, I'm promoting the assumption that M:N (even if it runs 1:1
much of the time) is a safer default than mandatory-1:1. I can't say for
certain which of those scenarios *will* need M:N and how badly it'll
hurt to be without; but I feel like mandatory-1:1 will paint ourselves
into a bunch of potential corners, as I tried to point out in the last
email. So I'm arguing the M:N stance is safer to start.
Or maybe you're not frustrated about that, or hadn't previously
considered those scenarios, and I am just reading frustration into the
argument. Did any of the points I raised in defense of *permitting* M:N
operation sound reasonable?
I still don't see where I made an accusation. If I did, sorry, it was
not the intention.
I am a bit frustrated that in the absence of data we are selecting the
more expensive option which is also the more expensive to backtrack and
following the examples of the least successful languages.
But never mind. I am sure there are plenty of tasks that are known to be
needed to work on (running destructors on fail, debug info, a driver
that works on the three platforms, etc).
-Graydon
Cheers,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
