Re: Run-time accessibility checks

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:03:23 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> OTOH, a fully dynamic model would only fail when the pointer really 
> is dangling, because the accessibility would stay with the access type and 
> there would never be any conversion to the static world. So that would only 
> represent a real bug. But of course it is a lot more expensive at runtime.

So far the problem is that accessibility check suggests that a pointer is
dangled when it is actually not.

> I'm going to write up a proposal for a fully dynamic model. I don't really 
> expect it to get anywhere, but at least we'll have it around the next time 
> someone starts realizing that static accessibility is complete junk.

Well, but I just don't need that stuff from the compiler. It merely blows
the language up giving nothing in return. When I (forced to) use a pointer
I know a lot more about the life time of the objects involved than the
compiler. I just want be able to express this semantics myself. For this I
need fat pointers with the "fat" defined myself. Give the programmer
abstract access types and scrap this dynamic accessibility stuff
altogether. [And anonymous access types as well.]

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de