Larry Wall wrote:
You've got it inside out.  Unordered is just "does A | B | C" or
some such, the | there really being coerced to a set construction,
not a junction.  In fact, & would work just as well.  I only used |
because it's more readable.  Autocoercion of junctions to sets is,
of course, conjectural.  You really have

    does set(A,B,C)

I would like "does A & B & C" mean the intersection type of A, B and C.
That is a supertype of all three roles. In addition we might need
negation to get what Jonathan Lang envisoned for the Complex type that
does Num & !Comparable. IOW, I'm opting for a role combination syntax
by means of logical operators that operate on the intension set of the
involved roles. Could we get that?

BTW, the synopsis reserve Foo[Bar] and Foo{Bar} for type theoretical
operations. The former is used for parametric types. How is the latter

Regards, TSa.

Reply via email to