> Basically, ¢T is a close analog of &t, which is the variableish form
> for "sub t".  When used in a declaration, both of them introduce a
> bare name as an alias into whatever scope the declaration is inserting
> symbols, albeit with different syntactic slots.  So just as
>
>     my &t := { ... }
>
> introduces the possibility of
>
>     t 1,2,3
>
> so also a
>
>     my ¢T := sometype();
>
> introduces the possibility of
>
>     my T $x;

I'm assuming that when you allow

    my ¢T := sometype();

you're also allowing

    my class T := sometype();

So, what happens when stupid me names a class "class" through
symbol-table craziness?

Rob

Reply via email to