Quoting Kenton Varda (2019-09-20 15:01:44) > As to the original question, again, I think what Kuba is trying to do > ought to work.
I think I've come around to agreeing here. > And as to what's allowed at runtime, it seems reasonable that we could > support covariance on struct-typed setters. Since setters make a copy, > there is no soundness concern. I believe this may be correct, after having thought through the details. > I am also not religious about soundness. I prioritize practicality. I wasn't really arguing from a religious standpoint, but I think requiring an explicit cast for possibly-unsound operations is not much of a burden, and has clear benefits from a safety perspective, which are well worth it. It seems like the point is moot in this case though. -Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cap'n Proto" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/capnproto/156900869365.3109.9045878714299999913%40localhost.localdomain.
