On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:57 PM, wren ng thornton <[email protected]> wrote:
> My other thought on the whole issue is that, instead of thinking about > C-style pointers, it may be prudent to consider the constructor tag for > unions as part of the reference rather than as part of the referent.... In an impure language where a union's content can be overwritten by another value of compatible type, this implementation isn't correct - which is why I'm looking from the other point of view. > But you should consider whether this ontological > separation sheds light on the semantic and syntactic issues you're > running into. That is a useful suggestion, and thank you! Jonathan
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
