On 25 February 2015 at 07:37, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2) I still don't understand why you think these other methods of > > specialisation are not useable when you have a subtyping relationship in > the > > type system? > > The reason my proposal doesn't use subtyping is not because I think > subtyping is not flexible enough. It's because I think it's too > flexible! It allows things that I don't see how to implement without > implicit allocations. Please don't ask me to repeat the example that > we discussed all day. Hmm, I don't see any examples that I don't think work, so I can only assume you see the implementation working differently. Those coercion functions you posted would never be implicitly used, and the typing would not allow them implicitly, but it would allow them to be explicitly defined. I'll post an implementation in logic when I have it working, and that should explain how it works much more clearly. Keean.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
