"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > ... | > | > | > | > OK, my understanding of your suggestion was different; see above. | > | > But, if it is the case that the programmer -- not the compiler -- | > | > has to do the manual declaration as Union, and manual insertion | > | > of coercion, I don't see anything wrong about it: It is what we are | > | > doing today. | > | | > Bill Page writes: | > | No. Today there is a semantic error. | > | > We must either test different compilers, or different examples. Could | > you remind me of which compiler and which example? | > | | All panAxiom compilers, the original example that started this thread: | | http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=87k5hxyq16.fsf%40gauss.cs.tamu.edu
Bill, read again what I wrote: But, if it is the case that the programmer -- not the compiler -- has to do the manual declaration as Union, and manual insertion of coercion, I don't see anything wrong about it: It is what we are doing today Please, point to me where in that example, there is an explicit declaration for variable to be a Union, AND manual insertion of coercion, AND it does not work today. Thanks. -- 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
