On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > FWIW, one option I didn't mention, but which deserves a mention: > > We could replace "all other statements are not terminating" with "an > implementation is allowed to treat other statements as terminating, if it can > prove it" (or similar). This wouldn't break the compatibility promise, as it > would only start accepting programs that are currently rejected. However, the > job of the spec is to clearly say which programs are valid and which are not. > There are some cases where the spec allows an implementation to chose > behaviors - but I don't think any of them would make the validity of go > programs so blatantly dependent on what heuristics a compiler author might > consider reasonable or not. They are mostly about performance and > future-proofing. So we'd likely pay a pretty hefty price in terms of > portability of code between compilers. We could still do it, but we still > need to ask ourselves if it's really worth it. After all, again, the worst > case is having to add an extra `return` here and there.
Yes, in general we don't want compilers to accept or reject programs based on heuristics. That would mean that different compilers would accept or reject different programs. We want to avoid that as much as is feasible. We want all the compilers to implement the same language. Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcVfM5teCMgQsUr85THx8NQQQGH0u0QFVDSk_1kX3bdyoA%40mail.gmail.com.
