Changes in / [298ed08:bede27b]

File:

• doc/papers/general/Paper.tex (modified) (6 diffs)

doc/papers/general/Paper.tex

@@ -310 +310 @@
 \end{lstlisting}
 Here, the single name @MAX@ replaces all the C type-specific names: @SHRT_MAX@, @INT_MAX@, @DBL_MAX@.
+As well, restricted constant overloading is allowed for the values @0@ and @1@, which have special status in C, \eg the value @0@ is both an integer and a pointer literal, so its meaning depends on context.
+In addition, several operations are defined in terms values @0@ and @1@, \eg:
+\begin{lstlisting}
+int x;
+if (x) x++                                                                      $\C{// if (x != 0) x += 1;}$
+\end{lstlisting}
+Every @if@ and iteration statement in C compares the condition with @0@, and every increment and decrement operator is semantically equivalent to adding or subtracting the value @1@ and storing the result.
+Due to these rewrite rules, the values @0@ and @1@ have the types @zero_t@ and @one_t@ in \CFA, which allows overloading various operations for new types that seamlessly connect to all special @0@ and @1@ contexts.
+The types @zero_t@ and @one_t@ have special built in implicit conversions to the various integral types, and a conversion to pointer types for @0@, which allows standard C code involving @0@ and @1@ to work as normal.
+
 
 \subsection{Traits}
@@ -1400 +1410 @@
 a value that does not have a corresponding address is called a \newterm{rvalue} (for ``right-hand value''), while a value that does have an address is called a \newterm{lvalue} (for ``left-hand value'').
 For example, in @int x; x = 42;@ the variable expression @x@ on the left-hand-side of the assignment is a lvalue, while the constant expression @42@ on the right-hand-side of the assignment is a rvalue.
-Despite the nomenclature of ``left-hand'' and ``right-hand'', an expression's classification as lvalue or rvalue is entirely dependent on whether it has an address or not; in imperative programming, the address of a value is used for both reading and writing (mutating) a value, and as such lvalues can be converted to rvalues and read from, but rvalues cannot be mutated because they lack a location to store the updated value.
+In imperative programming, the address of a value is used for both reading and writing (mutating) a value.
 
 Within a lexical scope, lvalue expressions have an \newterm{address interpretation} for writing a value or a \newterm{value interpretation} to read a value.
@@ -1460 +1470 @@
 Since pointers and references share the same internal representation, code using either is equally performant; in fact the \CFA compiler converts references to pointers internally, and the choice between them in user code can be made based solely on convenience.
 
-By analogy to pointers, \CFA references also allow cv-qualifiers such as @const@:
+By analogy to pointers, \CFA references also allow cv-qualifiers:
 
 \begin{cfa}
@@ -1574 +1584 @@
 \section{Literals}
 
-C already includes limited polymorphism for literals -- @0@ can be either an integer or a pointer literal, depending on context, while the syntactic forms of literals of the various integer and floating-point types are very similar, differing from each other only in suffix.
-In keeping with the general \CFA approach of adding features while respecting ``the C way'' of doing things, we have extended both C's polymorphic zero and typed literal syntax to interoperate with user-defined types, while maintaining a backwards-compatible semantics.
 
 \subsection{0/1}
 
-In C, @0@ has the special property that it is the only ``false'' value; by the standard, any value which compares equal to @0@ is false, while any value that compares unequal to @0@ is true. 
-As such, an expression @x@ in any boolean context (such as the condition of an @if@ or @while@ statement, or the arguments to an @&&@, @||@, or ternary operator) can be rewritten as @x != 0@ without changing its semantics.
-The operator overloading feature of \CFA provides a natural means to implement this truth value comparison for arbitrary types, but the C type system is not precise enough to distinguish an equality comparison with @0@ from an equality comparison with an arbitrary integer or pointer. 
-To provide this precision, \CFA introduces a new type @zero_t@ as type type of literal @0@ (somewhat analagous to @nullptr_t@ and @nullptr@ in \CCeleven); @zero_t@ can only take the value @0@, but has implicit conversions to the integer and pointer types so that standard C code involving @0@ continues to work properly. 
-With this addition, the \CFA compiler rewrites @if (x)@ and similar expressions to @if (x != 0)@ or the appropriate analogue, and any type @T@ can be made ``truthy'' by defining a single function @int ?!=?(T, zero_t)@. 
-
-\TODO{Clean up and integrate this paragraph} As well, restricted constant overloading is allowed for the values @0@ and @1@, which have special status in C, \eg the value @0@ is both an integer and a pointer literal, so its meaning depends on context.
-In addition, several operations are defined in terms values @0@ and @1@, \eg:
-\begin{lstlisting}
-int x;
-if (x) x++                                                                      $\C{// if (x != 0) x += 1;}$
-\end{lstlisting}
-Every @if@ and iteration statement in C compares the condition with @0@, and every increment and decrement operator is semantically equivalent to adding or subtracting the value @1@ and storing the result.
-Due to these rewrite rules, the values @0@ and @1@ have the types @zero_t@ and @one_t@ in \CFA, which allows overloading various operations for new types that seamlessly connect to all special @0@ and @1@ contexts.
-The types @zero_t@ and @one_t@ have special built in implicit conversions to the various integral types, and a conversion to pointer types for @0@, which allows standard C code involving @0@ and @1@ to work as normal.
+\TODO{Some text already at the end of Section~\ref{sec:poly-fns}}
 
 
@@ -1623 +1617 @@
 \end{cfa}
 }%
+
 
 \section{Evaluation}
@@ -1798 +1793 @@
 Finally, we demonstrate that \CFA performance for some idiomatic cases is better than C and close to \CC, showing the design is practically applicable.
 
-There is ongoing work on a wide range of \CFA feature extensions, including arrays with size, exceptions, concurrent primitives, modules, and user-defined conversions.
+There is ongoing work on a wide range of \CFA feature extensions, including reference types, arrays with size, exceptions, concurrent primitives and modules.
 (While all examples in the paper compile and run, a public beta-release of \CFA will take another 8--12 months to finalize these additional extensions.)
 In addition, there are interesting future directions for the polymorphism design.