Context Navigation

r98b4b12	rbd405fa
42	42	Though the direction and experimental validation of this work is fairly narrowly focused on the \CFA{} programming language, the tools used and results obtained should be of interest to a wider compiler and programming language design community.
43	43	In particular, with the addition of \emph{concepts} in \CCtwenty{}~\cite{C++Concepts}, conforming \CC{} compilers must support a model of type assertions very similar to that in \CFA{}, and the algorithmic techniques used here may prove useful.
44		Much of the difficulty of type-checking \CFA{} stems from the language design choice to allow overload selection from the context of a function call based on function return type in addition to the type of the arguments to the call; this feature allows the programmers to specify fewer redundant type annotations on functions that are polymorphic in their return type.
	44	Much of the difficulty of type-checking \CFA{} stems from the language design choice to allow overload selection from the context of a function call based on function return type in addition to the type of the arguments to the call; this feature allows the programmer to specify fewer redundant type annotations on functions that are polymorphic in their return type.
45	45	As an example in \CC{}:
46	46	\begin{C++}

doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/resolution-heuristics.tex

r98b4b12	rbd405fa
18	18	A comparison of the richer type systems in \CFA{} and \CC{} highlights some of the challenges in \CFA{} expression resolution.
19	19	The key distinction between \CFA{} and \CC{} resolution is that \CC{} uses a greedy algorithm for selection of candidate functions given their argument interpretations, whereas \CFA{} allows contextual information from superexpressions to influence the choice among candidate functions.
20		One key use of this contextual information is for type inference of polymorphic return types; \CC{} requires explicit specification of template parameters that only occur in a function's return type, while \CFA{} allows the instantiation of these type parameters to be inferred from context(and in fact does not allow explicit specification of type parameters to a function), as in the following example:
	20	One key use of this contextual information is for type inference of polymorphic return types; \CC{} requires explicit specification of template parameters that only occur in a function's return type, while \CFA{} allows the instantiation of these type parameters to be inferred from context (and in fact does not allow explicit specification of type parameters to a function), as in the following example:
21	21
22	22	\begin{cfa}

r98b4b12	rbd405fa
16	16	\usepackage{ifthen}
17	17	\newboolean{PrintVersion}
18		\setboolean{PrintVersion}{~~tru~~e}
	18	\setboolean{PrintVersion}{false}
19	19	% CHANGE THIS VALUE TO "true" as necessary, to improve printed results for hard copies
20	20	% by overriding some options of the hyperref package below.

Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.