Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | I mean that if I can write: | > | | y := x + 1 | > | | and expect the compiler to provide an implicit type for y based | > on | > | knowledge of x, + and 1 where all of these potentially overloaded, the | > | number of possibilities rises rapidly. The greater the number of | > | possibilites, the greater that chance of making a type error. | > what is the fundamental difference with | > y := x() + One() | > ? | | Gaby, I don't understand your question. Be more specific.
The claim was that overloading of variable is undesirable because in example like y := x + 1 it would not play out well because of the many possibilities. My question is how that situation is fundamentally different from y := x() + One() since we already have overloading on return type. -- Gaby ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
