On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:55 PM, BCS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reply to Jarrett, > >> The strange is(T U), is(T U : V), is(T U == V) forms.. I'm not sure >> what to do about those. >> > > #2 & 3 are to allow compact type pattern matching. IIRC there not that good > at it, but are better than nothing. > > It's more or less what you bring up in you last point. > > Any solution here should include the ability to ask "does type T match > pattern P if the symbols A B and C (that are part of P) are defined > correctly? If so, declared A, B and C as needed". You sort of hint at that > ability near the end, but it needs to be explicit in the design goals.
OK, explicitly then: those forms remain. ;)
