On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Sandro Magi <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 16/04/2012 2:38 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > That's a fairly large pain in the butt. In my proposal, it is
> > /permitted/ to provide TC(int, int), but it is not /required/. The
> > situation is very rare, and it is usually true that it doesn't actually
> > matter which variant you pick.
>
> You've acknowledged in the above that it's not always true, so what are
> you to do when the variant selected does matter?
>
Two options:
1. Open them in the desired order, or
2. Specify TC(int, int)
>
> > "Latest match wins" might be ok if the *exact* same overload is
> > redefined, although I'm a little wary of that.
> >
> > Definitely not. It is (and must be) an error if the exact same overload
> > is redefined.
>
> Then one of us must be confused, because your original note had this
> exact overload defined twice:
>
> instance TC(char, char) {...} // okay - /partially shadows /previous
> instance TC(char, char) {...} // error - /fully/ shadows previous
>
Yes it did. Kindly read the comment on the second one more closely.
Specifically the part where it says "error". :-)
shap
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
