On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:49 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Even if I agreed, this isn't a discussion about the "best" OO scheme. >> It's a discussion about how to put minimally sufficient support (if >> any is needed) into the BitC type system to interoperate sensibly with >> C++ and CTS. > > Well, it was appearing to me as if you were questioning the whole issue > of how OO is supported within BitC. If interoperability is the concern, > it's possible and maybe even a good idea to keep the foreign code at > arm's length with an FFI, instead of letting it dictate how your OO > system looks like.
That can be made to work, but it feels like a second-class solution. The whole *point* of a common type system is to allow first-class interaction across languages. I'm teetering at the moment on a disturbing epiphony about type classes. Actually, I've already experienced the epiphony, and I'm still trying to decide whether I believe it. More on this later. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
