TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
'doesa'? I suppose, but I had not thought about it. The issues are the
same: The final type made with composed roles does not have to follow
subtyping rules with respect to treating the role as an "interface"
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
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.