[m-dev.] For review: base_type_functors

[Fergus Henderson]

Peter Schachte, you wrote:
> 
> What if you put the less important stuff at the very beginning of the data
> structure?  Then accesses will usually fall in just as small a range as if
> they're at the very end.  Wouldn't that achieve the same result, while
> still keeping the access to the fixed fields simple?

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
An ordering like the following is probably best:

	% SIMPLE: Simple vector contains 
	%	  - A word containing a representation of the primary and
	%	    secondary tags of this functor
	% 	  - a pointer to a string containing the name of this
	% 	    functor.
	% 	  - the arity of the functor (N)
	% 	  - N pointers to pseudo-typeinfos (of each argument),

-- 
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.