Guillaume Laurent wrote: > Yes, but in practice they are very close to one another. 1=> The point is, > strongly enforcing the distinction between two types which are, in essence, > very close (like a char and a int, or an int and an unsigned int) isn't > always good. The only thing Stephen's UInt property brings is a somewhat > stronger type checking at compile-time. 2=> My point is that it's just not worth it.
1 and 2 are new, unrelated points. Your point in your previous email to which I was replying was that you claimed to have given a "very basic" counter-example to my point regarding overly general types, whereas, as I explained, your example was actually not a counter-example at all. Your new point 1) is not relevant to my point and looks like a misunderstanding. You seem to have taken my statement that char and int are two different types as somehow implying that I think there is not a close relationship between them but that is not what I think; clearly there is a simple arithmetic equivalence between them via twos-complement sign-extension / contraction during coercions. I note that your second point, which is actually relevant, does not contradict my original point that using types that are as specific as possible to the set of objects which is to be represented improves maintainability. Maybe we are in agreement afterall :-) William ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
