Re: New types; also opacity without passkeys

[Michael R. Blair <ziggy@martigny.ai.mit.edu>]

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This abstractness allows implementors to
> match their implementation of this proposal to the strengths of
> their particular compilers, instead of having to change their
> compilers to match someone else's idea of what an optimizing
> compiler should do.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find your tone here objectionable, primarily because you seem to imply
that I personally would impose a set of optimizations on implementors.  I
would not.  I am not that kind of fascist control freak.  You have clearly
confused me and my motives with those of others on this list.

I had suggested that it would be _possible_ for Dybvig to implement his
opaque record proposal atop an appropriately constrained opaque object
implementation based on my proposal.  He seemed to argue that it in fact
would _not_ be possible.  You then chimed in that the optimizations I
detailed were objectionable and you took me to task for using terms from
code generation to describe what was essentially a source-level semantic
analysis.  You would now vilify me as imposing in-lining and EQ?-ness
analysis on those who don't care to implement it.

Never did I say that anyone _must_ implement the optimizations I outlined.
Never did I say that Dybvig should be _required_ to implement his opaque
records this way.

My sole point was that it would be _possible_ for him to do so using a
small set of easily implemented source-level analyses. Since he is the one
contorting the record proposal to accommodate his personal agenda for an
unpublished analysis for dropping record slots and other trivial tweeks, I
didn't think it unreasonable to suggest how he might include some
additional cheap analysis to even do it atop a more general opacity
mechanism which he could constrain to suit his needs. And I felt compelled
to explain that position until I saw at least some inkling that I was
understood.

I went to extreme lengths to accommodate everyone.  I tried to offer a
general compromise mechanism that could suit a variety of people.  All I
get in return is argumentative chatter, redirection and back-handed
insults.  This does not serve any of us well.

Apparently this forum is just too divisive and there are far too many
personal hidden agenda's for any such compromise to be possible.

I give up.  My patience is spent.  Congratulations.  You win.