On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Keean Schupke <ke...@fry-it.com> wrote:
> I actually prefer to allow instance definitions that are not put into > implicit scope automatically. Then a separate directive brings an instance > into implicit scope, otherwise it must be passed explicitly... > I tend to agree, though from a purely pragmatic perspective a convenience syntax to do both at once is helpful. E.g. by inserting a keyword "default" before an instance binding. I think the main points are: 1. merely defining an instance shoudn't require that you bring it into scope as an implicit resolution 2. instances should be named, if only so that their visibility, import, and export rules can be rationalized with the rules for every other kind of binding i the language. 3. some instances are defined in the preamble, and are so close to ground that we don't want to have to explicitly "open" them. BitC has some special rules about implicit import for preamble definitions for this reason. There's no semantic change; it's purely a pragmatics issue. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
