What I like about explicit ::Any is that it makes clear to the reader that the author has thought a little bit about the type of that argument. But I think I’m going to move this proposal into a separate list of suggestions, rather than strict rules.
— John On Dec 31, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Steven G. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:45:17 PM UTC-5, John Myles White wrote: > Explicit typing isn’t the problem, no? From my perspective, the problem is > incorrect typing, not typing per se. My proposal is that one should use > explicit Any’s, which doesn’t seem to suffer from the issues you’re raising. > As far as I can see, our disagreement would just be between using implicit > Any and explicit Any. In the end, I’m not that committed to explicit Any, but > I can’t see what harm it does. > > Sure, an explicit Any type is equivalent to omitting the type, at which point > I agree that it is just a matter of style and not semantics. Now I > understand what you meant, although I'm not sure I see the attraction of > explicit ::Any.
