Joel de Guzman
Joel de Guzman
OK, I guess this is good to go then.
> I am afraid of renaming the next macros: That will break a lot of user code.
> I would also prefer it as a policy document and not as someones opinion I second that.
Correct me if my understanding is wrong, but I think one difference between 'hold' and the alternative solutions is that with 'hold' you only pay for it when you use...
> I wonder if there is a way to shift the annotation (such as hold) out of the grammar and into the attribute where it belongs. Like a wrapper for...
> I've almost never used hold. Me too. Whatever the solution is, we should not pay for something that we do not use.
> Non-container attributes handling will not changed even on asm level for all the solutions Interesting! Indeed, we might be misunderstanding. Could you expound a bit more?
> You simply do not need to hold/clear a non-container attribute because it will be rewritten in any other successful branch entirely. Not sure I understand. 'hold' is explicit. And...
> The main subject of the discussion is X3. The Qi currently for me is a ground of possible counterexamples and only if there are none of them I will...