[MLton] upcoming release
Tue, 2 Aug 2005 07:24:18 -0700
> One other unresolved issue is whether or not to include an _address
> primitive, and what its annotation should be.
> Wesley has rightly pointed out that the current implementation prohibits
> taking the address of a function from the ML side, except by lying about
> the type of the object.
I agree that the current situation is bad. And it seems like
_address "symbol": ptrTy;
is the way to go, since it jibes with the MLton assumption that all
pointers are the same size.
As to whether we then drop the _address component of _symbol, I am now
fine either way. I did find the fact that _symbol * returned three
> Also, I still wonder if "define" is the right name for the annotation that
> indicates that the symbol should be (statically) allocated by the ML
> object code. How about "storage"?
How about "alloc" or "allocate"?