In other words, the type of an assembly instruction specifies its effects and coeffects. This is an active research area—describing effects and coeffects in the type system, and discharging handler/provider obligations at the compiler level.
I suspect the main reason someone might quibble over the “assembly is typed” assertion is that many programmers have a rather narrow view of type systems, heavily skewed by OOP patterns.
That's pretty much the quibble. Most people's narrow view of type system.
And we already track all of the basic side-effects and clobbering that each form of each mnemonic does. That's kind of the entire point of this being possible: it's all "typed".
Comments
In other words, the type of an assembly instruction specifies its effects and coeffects. This is an active research area—describing effects and coeffects in the type system, and discharging handler/provider obligations at the compiler level.
I suspect the main reason someone might quibble over the “assembly is typed” assertion is that many programmers have a rather narrow view of type systems, heavily skewed by OOP patterns.
That's pretty much the quibble. Most people's narrow view of type system.
And we already track all of the basic side-effects and clobbering that each form of each mnemonic does. That's kind of the entire point of this being possible: it's all "typed".