Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> The Bytecode representation should be mutable and contain enough iformation
> for type/data flow analysis.
What do you mean by "mutable"? Wouldn't the dataflow analysis for a
given bytecode be immutable? Or do you mean the implementation should
be hackable?
> (Do you think this is possible? If it is a question of speed, would
> making it optional still have it work?)
I was thinking that dataflow information collected during compilation
would be saved in the bytecode format. The interpreter would generally
ignore it, but if the compiler read a bytecode file, it could just use
the information already there and not worry about having to analyze
bytecode.
- Ken
