On Sun, 2005-05-15 at 13:33 -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> >In reviewing S29 as it stands now, I see that many builtins both receive
> >and return boxed basic types.

> My thoughts on writing it were:
> The boxed version is the specification, in that the language must 
> support them. Think about using a SubType somewhere, and you see why. 

Ok, that makes sense.

> However, I also fully expected implementations to add an easy 
> optimization of including unboxed equivalents and letting MMD sort it out.

And this makes sense too. Thanks Rod!

Reply via email to