[m-dev.] Re: Bug in determinism analysis

[Fergus Henderson]

On 05-Dec-1997, Peter Schachte <pets at students.cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> 
> > Currently the semantics say that with `--strict-sequential', everything
> > is left-to-right, except as required by the modes.  So this example is
> > required to loop.  But if we change switch detection so that it
> > continues past function calls, then this program would not loop;
> 
> Why can't you stop at the first call only when --strict-sequential is
> specified?  Is it important that the compiler accept the same programs
> regardless of operational semantics?  If so, why?

It is important that any program which is legal with the default options
is also legal with the `--strict-sequential' option.  One important reason
for why the `--strict-sequential' option exists is for portability.
If some otherwise legal programs won't compile with `--strict-sequential',
then it's not going to achieve that aim.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh at 128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.