3 ms·
Is MIR being treated as part of the language definition? Most languages would treat such a thing as an implementation detail, so defining the constraints in tha
by lmkg 9y ago
Is MIR being treated as part of the language definition? Most languages would treat such a thing as an implementation detail, so defining the constraints in that fashion seems like it still looks like it may tie you to the reference implementation.
- apendleton 9y agoMy maybe-wrong sense was more than the MIR could change from one compiler release to the next, but that the editions couldn't introduce language changes that would require any given release of the compiler to have to produce MIR of a different kind for code of one edition vs. another. You'll be able to compile a single binary relying on different libraries pinned to different editions, and I think the idea is that from the MIR stage of the build onward, whatever differences may exist (e.g., a reserved word in one edition might be a function name in another) have to be papered over so that whole-program optimization/compilation can occur.
- steveklabnik 9y agoIt’s not; it’s just a good way to talk about the limits of the changes possible.