On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Of course it does need that (and it's not C0X news, obviously). We still > have the type handling messed up in a lot of areas, so the plan is to > sort out the declaration parsing, then get rid of the warts in type > representation and handling, then deal with composites. > > IMO the right way to look at that crap is: > * any declaration gives a new struct symbol, with type being the > composite of that given by declaration and that of previously seen one > (which, in turn, has gathered all earlier stuff) > * type nodes should be treated as expressions, with on-demand > evaluation and referential transparency (i.e. any rewrite replaces with > equal). We are not that far from such state. Can you elaborate the referential transparency? I currently have a vague idea of what you are trying to do. Where should I start if I am going to turn the idea into code. Should we delay the detail of type information until evaluate stage? Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
