Why do you need to drop the (..) when it turns into a "data" decl?
You only need do so if you want it to be abstract!
But "type" decls can't be abstract; the (..) reminds you of this.
Some of us have been musing on how to provide an abstract version of
"type" too, but that didn't get into the language.
Simon
| From: Stephen J Bevan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 15:56:06 GMT
|
|
| Consider the following :-
|
| >module Oberon_Integer
| >type Oberon_Integer = Integer
|
| >module Parser
| >import Oberon_Integer(Oberon_Integer(..))
|
| If I drop the "(..)" HBC complains (and correctly so as far as I'm
| aware). However, having to tag types with "(..)" make it tedious to
| change implementations between a "type" and "data". So my question
| is: why is the distinction on the import clause necessary?
|
| bevan
