This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 25, 2025. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 25, 2025. It is now read-only.
Interaction between 'let' and name section #37
Description
Activity
Agreed, the name section should eventually support let.
since 'let' seems to be creating some complications, maybe it should be removed and replaced with the rule that non-defaultable locals must be (trivially) provably initialized before use.
Yeah, but that would amount to control-flow-dependent type checking. Such systems tend to create considerably more complications, and a "trivial" approximation quickly becomes wishful thinking -- there always is another useful case that somebody wants to see handled.
If label types are extended to be able to specify that certain locals must be defined, that addresses all those complications.
Let was removed, so this is obsolete.
Are there any thoughts about how 'let' should interact with the name section? I see two issues:
On a more general note, since 'let' seems to be creating some complications, maybe it should be removed and replaced with the rule that non-defaultable locals must be (trivially) provably initialized before use.