From 1bd5f2f5f1a3df0bf5d0907d08c70eda9e120e1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Kartik K. Agaram" Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 11:12:36 -0700 Subject: 138 Current todo stack: trace-based assert new-tagged-value - assert that first arg has size 1 test constructing list manually new-list --- mu.arc.t | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/mu.arc.t b/mu.arc.t index 4d7df707..1f1329be 100644 --- a/mu.arc.t +++ b/mu.arc.t @@ -902,11 +902,9 @@ ; 'type' and 'otype' let us create generic functions that run different code ; based on what args the caller provides, or what oargs the caller expects. ; -; These operations are more experimental than their surroundings; we might -; eventually need more detailed access to the calling instruction. -; -; There's also the open question of how to deal with dynamic-typing situations -; where the caller doesn't know the type of its arg/oarg. +; These operations are almost certainly bad ideas; they violate our constraint +; of easily assembling down to native code. We'll eventually switch to dynamic +; typing with tagged-values. (reset) (new-trace "dispatch-otype") -- cgit 1.4.1-2-gfad0