On 4 April 2015 at 12:07, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > > We are now arguing about programming style, which is kind of silly, > 'cause Shap's gonna code it up how _he_ wants. > > I'm saying if we used Bool-isomorphic things for multiple reasons, > we'd just define Bool. Bool would have the canonical forms true and > false. There would be no "Hare" or "Rabbit" in the first place. (Or > "NotHare" or "NotRabbit".) >
Well, my point was that leads to category errors. K.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
