summary |
shortlog |
log |
commit | commitdiff |
tree
raw |
patch |
inline | side by side (from parent 1:
1334a4b)
Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor <profjim@jimpryor.net>
(C has explicit-style mutable variables, too, which it calls *pointers*. But simple variables in C are already mutable, in the implicit style.)
(C has explicit-style mutable variables, too, which it calls *pointers*. But simple variables in C are already mutable, in the implicit style.)
-When dealing with explicit-style mutation, there's a difference between the types and values of `ycell` and `!ycell` (or `(unbox ycell)`). The former has the type `int ref`: the variable `ycell` is assigned a reference cell that contains an `int`. The latter has the type `int`, and has whatever value is now stored in the relevant reference cell. In an implicit-style framework though, we only have the resources to refer to the contents of the relevant reference cell. `y` in fragment [G] or the C snippet above has the type `int`, and only ever evaluates to `int` values.
+When dealing with explicit-style mutation, there's a difference between the types and values of `ycell` and `!ycell` (or in Scheme, `(unbox ycell)`). The former has the type `int ref`: the variable `ycell` is assigned a reference cell that contains an `int`. The latter has the type `int`, and has whatever value is now stored in the relevant reference cell. In an implicit-style framework though, we only have the resources to refer to the contents of the relevant reference cell. `y` in fragment [G] or the C snippet above has the type `int`, and only ever evaluates to `int` values.