On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 12:46:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: : Sure, that's doable, as are a number of other things. Depends on the : semantics of assignment to uninitialized types, though that's on a : per-type basis. This all gets somewhat messy when you mix in objects : and types, since what you'd do for storage depends on a number of : factors. (Like we want a low-level int if that was "my int $foo", a : generic restriction on what it can hold a reference to if Joe's just : a dull class, or impose assignment semantics on if it's a bit more : active)
Sort of an "All's fair in love and war and assignment." :-) I think all three of your behaviors are possible from your other message. #2 comes about if there's a declared coercion operator between the classes. But maybe that's just a check the compiler wraps around the assignment. Dunno. I try to stay out of the SMOPs, and occasionally succeed. Larry
