mangling of function names

[Alex Samuel]

Martin von Loewis <loewis at informatik.hu-berlin.de> writes:

  Alex> It occurred to me, since we agreed today that since names of
  Alex> functions are not going to be substituted anyway, why don't we
  Alex> just eliminate them as substitution candidates?  That way
  Alex> there's no need to rewrite the name grammar, which pretty much
  Alex> works now.  What I'm proposing is another exception in the
  Alex> `Compression' section that states that the <name> of a
  Alex> function shall not be a substitution candidate.

  Martin> That could be done. But then, this only safes a single slot
  Martin> in the table. So for simplicity of the spec, I would not
  Martin> introduce that special case.

Unfortunately, I fear the name grammar would have to be complicated to
accomodate the semantics we want, if this is important.  At the very
least, modifying it again would probably entail several rounds of
back-and-forth to get it right.  Jim, do you have a sense for how
`invasive' this change would be?

However, given that we aren't going to substitute it anyway, we could
just relax our semantic considerations and place the (untyped) name of
the function into the substitution candidate list, expecting that it
would not be substituted later (though I suspect we could invent cases
in which it might).

Regards
Alex Samuel