Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: >>> * Note that the numbering scheme for constructors and fields used above >>> is just a placeholder for simplicity of definition (that is, it must not >>> be understood as enforced by the language). They can be uniquely renamed >>> to any legal identifier. >> * Note that the numbering scheme for constructors and fields used >> above ... > > I have no idea what this means either. >
I was trying to foresee (and resolve) a confusion between the convention I used to describe defrepr and the requirements enforced by the language. But I guess this lead to more confusion by itself. All I was saying here is: The naming of Constructors as Ctr1, .. Ctrx, ..., and fields as f11, f12 ... f21, f22 ... etc is a naming convention followed in my example, and not something that will be present in all defreprs legal in the language. Swaroop. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
