On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 12:35 -0700, Raoul Duke wrote: > hi, > > > The issue that I have NOT addressed here is the issue of subtyping and > > supporting syntax. That clearly needs to be addressed, and we will > > address it in a future note. > > Does that mean y'all have it worked out already? I am concerned, given > how fraught-with-peril most OO implementations really are (fragile > base classes, diamond problems, yadda cubed), that adding objects to > BitC could start to add some unfortunate gotchyas. If you have plans > to address those things, that would be great :-)
There isn't any deep theoretical issue. It's more that existential types seem to cross the threshold of user-manageable complexity unless they are very carefully constrained. In a language with value types (i.e. explicit unboxing) there is also a problem that the compiler cannot determine the size of a field having existential type. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
