On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:29 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: > What I do not think should be allowed (and I may be contradicting Larry > here, which I realize is taking my life in my hands ;) is violating the > compile-time view of the "static" type tree. That is, you can load an > object "foo" at run-time, without and interface definition, but it can't > change the shape of the type tree or its existing interfaces. If it > wants to do that, it has to provide an interface def (e.g. what an > autoload module should be able to provide).
I disagree, *unless* you predeclare that you don't plan to change anything -- as an optimization hint. (Though if you write a module to do this as a policy, I won't hunt you down with my +2 club of Optimize for the Programmer, not the Compiler.) I certainly plan to continue to instrument code at runtime (and not just really slushy, partially slushy, and permafrost compile time). -- c
