Three things the review found, and the refusal it was right about.
The returned-Vec refusal is gone. It called a leak a dangle: the storage a
returned Vec owns outlives the expression, so the view reads what it says it
reads, and what is lost is the owner. (len (mk)) and (at (mk) 0) lose the same
owner and compile, spec-memory.md already says an overwritten global Vec leaks
its first block, and under a region there is nothing to leak at all. "We're
purposely doing manual memory management for the static side, so whatever."
The array refusal stays exactly as it is — that one is a view into a frame
that is gone and answers bytes the frame has since reused. Wrong answers are
the compiler's business and leaks are the program's, and both docs now draw
that line, because the two forms look alike.
The -1 sentinel was reachable from user syntax: (slice v 0 -1) answered the
whole Vec on both backends while (slice a 0 -1) was refused as a negative
bound. The refusal now runs on the bounds the reader wrote, before the
implicit hi is built — the only order that works, since the sentinel is itself
a -1 and a check on the finished pair would refuse (slice v). The
backwards-pair check moved into the branch where both ends are written.
The bounds seam is closed toward index_expr, and the tiebreaker is not which
half is older. indexed and vec_at both take their index through it, so
(at a c) over a u32 compiled where (slice a c) did not: the fork was between
slice and at as much as between two targets. A bound is a subscript.
Also an x86 row for vec.flan, so the new arity is pinned on both backends in
CI rather than by hand, and the comment columns the sweep shifted left in
slurp, into, format and algorithms.
Joseph Ferano
c3319e6268