3 ms·
That's a good point, I'd not thought about it like that. So you're saying that unless you load types step-by-step, you can't have fully reified generics types,
by matthewwarren 9y ago
That's a good point, I'd not thought about it like that.
So you're saying that unless you load types step-by-step, you can't have fully reified generics types, because of circular references/dependencies, is that the reason?
- kevingadd 9y agoHaving implemented a large subset of this stuff for my own .NET runtime, you absolutely cannot implement the fully reified generics without loading in stages like this. The circular dependencies can get extremely tangled.
- matthewwarren 9y agoThanks for the info > Having implemented a large subset of this stuff for my own .NET runtime Interesting, which runtime was this? Is it the source available anywhere, I'd love to have a look if it was?
- kevingadd 9y agohttps://github.com/sq/JSIL https://github.com/sq/JSIL