On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 12:39 +0100, J�rgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote: > Hi, > I just wondered if you have considered the work on extensional polymorphism > by Furuse [1] as a framework for > overloading?
We haven't, and we will look at it. My guess is that extensional polymorphism is way too complex for what we are trying to do. If I could get rid of overloading entirely and still have a language with adequate support for abstraction, I'ld do it in a heartbeat. > As far as I understand that would give the programmer explicit control > over overload resolution, as well as provide static type safety. Giving the programmer control over overloading in general is definitely a bad idea. There are certain *kinds* of control that may be okay, but every "option" available to the user is a multiplication by two of the semantic complexity of the language. > Also I wondered work on multi-staging [2] and macros [3] would be relevant? > Especially since multi-staging researched fro O'Caml can be statically > type checked. We'll look. Thanks! shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
