It seems that a logic programming inspired take on types might be useful: e.g. ForAll X such that X DoThis is defined, X DoThis
or maybe, ForAll X such that X HasMethodReturning Y and Y DoThis is defined, Y DoThis
Or, how about, pattern matching on message reception? Allow "free variables" in the method prototype so that inexact matching is possible? Send a message to a field of objects, and all interpret the message as it binds to their "receptors"...
On 09/10/2010 04:57, Casey Ransberger wrote:
I think "type" is a foundationaly bad idea. What matters is that the object in question can respond intelligently to the message you're passing it. Or at least, that's what I think right now, anyway. It seems like type specification (and as such, early binding) have a very limited real use in the domain of really-actually-for-real-and-seriously mission critical systems, like those that guide missiles or passenger planes.
Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
