Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Estimating the size of the ocaml community
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The boon of static type checking
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 03:58 +1100, skaller wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 21:57, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
> > 
> > While the single-assignment aspect of SSA could be considered
> > "functional", representing control flow using blocks and branches can't.
> 
> Yeah it can, it has been proven SSA is equivalent to
> a purely functional representation. Branches are done with CPS.
> Sorry I can't find the paper: the paper was actually written
> to explain *why* SSA is easy to analyse.

It's kind of equivalent (IIRC SSA can be transformed to CPS, but (full)
CPS can't be transformed trivially into SSA), but I still think SSA is
not functional in style.  Blocks are an imperative concept.

SSA also does nothing to address the interesting parts of compiling
functional languages - dealing with functions and calls.