[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: compiler directives; (was: Re: cheerful static typing (was: Any and Every... (was: Eval)))
--- Michael Vanier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> This brings up an interesting point. How do people
> on this list feel about
> allowing compiler directives in programming
I'm in favour of compiler directives. I believe there
should be two-way communication between the programmer
and compiler. I should be able to say "this imported
C function is a pure function, so hoist it out of
loops". The compiler should be able to say "I can't
do some neat unboxing here because I can't prove the
types of this expression. Can you simplify it?" And
so on. The Python (Common Lisp) compiler does the
latter but few systems do the former.
A search on google for compiler annotation brings up a
lot of hits, so there appears to be a lot of work in
this area. Two papers I'm familiar with describe
annotations in C-- and MLRISC. My LtU post was
vaguely about this topic (but fairly vague about any
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!