TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:

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.

'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" abstract type.

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.

How so?

Reply via email to