John M. Dlugosz wrote:
"isa" as a synonym for "is" that turns on warnings is documented at the end of my paper under "Concepts discussed in this paper that are not on the Synopses".

I totally agree! Using 'isa' pulls in the type checker. Do we have the
same option for 'does' e.g. 'doesa'? Or is type checking always implied
in role composition? Note that the class can override a role's methods
at will.

Nobody's objected to it. In this group, I'm preaching to the choir anyway. Everyone knows higher-order typing is the idea, and I'm just trying to work out the ramifications and details that are in-tune with the orthodox documentation and discussions here.

Hmm, I always had the impression of strong headwind.

Regards, TSa.

"The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity"  -- C.A.R. Hoare
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12  -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Reply via email to