> 1\. Well yes, that's how it works... > > 2\. There is an implicit type conversion from owned to unowned...
@Araq, I assumed as much, just wanted to confirm, and just to notify you that the spec 2 should likely have a clarification for these.
> 1\. Well yes, that's how it works... > > 2\. There is an implicit type conversion from owned to unowned...
@Araq, I assumed as much, just wanted to confirm, and just to notify you that the spec 2 should likely have a clarification for these.