Just a quick clarification: I'm not saying that these were the *only* issues. I'm saying that these were the ones that made me queasy enough to abandon the effort. As an example of another important issue, I also think that a (possibly limited) form of dependent type seems like a really good idea as well.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>wrote: > I seem once again to have a project for which I need a modern, extensible > language, so I'm considering whether it is possible to resurrect BitC in > some form. The main issues were: > > 1. Type classes vs. overloading vs. genericity > 2. Subtyping/Subclassing > 3. We got const-ness wrong. > > I'm going to take each of these up in a separate note, and I'd appreciate > reactions and comments on the appropriate threads. > > > Jonathan >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
