> Obviously you gained type safety, > > Isn't that kinda the point of a type system? :-)
I suppose, but for me it's more about why I should write down the types. If we asked Gilad Bracha, he'd probably say it's a bad idea because they restrain your thinking. Me, I say it's good because the compiler can verify that all messages sent are understood by their receivers. Structural unions would get me much farther in that direction and that's where I want to go. If I understand it correctly (and I can only hope in this case) I would not need to write down any types if higher-order unification was decidable. Wouldn't that be nice? With kind regards Ben --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
