On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 18:41 +0100, J�rgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote: > Yes, and your current approach seems conservative enough to allow > future experimentation and proposals, assuming that you have left > overloading entirely as a future exercise.
I think that for the sake of pragmatics we are going to have to provide built-in overloads for arithmetic operators, but I think we can defer general overloading. Is this good enough for now? shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
