legitimate candidate for t2 <: T2.
-- Eylon --
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Hall
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:35 AM
To: Cormac Flanagan
Cc: Brendan Eich; es4-discuss
Subject: Re: Self type
I think my confusion here, is pe
I think my confusion here, is perhaps that I'm seeing this a slightly
different way. What you are saying seems to suggest that Self type
annotations can behave differently at runtime. To me, this example
from the wiki should be an error:
type T1 = { f:function(this:Self, z:Self):Self, w:int
>> Is there a broken link somewhere?
>
> No, but I'm getting permission denied now.
You need to be logged in for the discussion: namespace.
Dave
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
On Aug 16, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Dave Herman wrote:
>> Dave Herman's analysis is on the wiki, but for some reason I'm
>> getting an error trying to access the relevant page [3].
>>
>> ...
>>
>> [3] https://wiki.ecmascript.org/ECMA/wiki/doku.php?
>> id=discussion:classes_as_structural_types_with_brand
> Dave Herman's analysis is on the wiki, but for some reason I'm
> getting an error trying to access the relevant page [3].
>
> ...
>
> [3] https://wiki.ecmascript.org/ECMA/wiki/doku.php?
> id=discussion:classes_as_structural_types_with_branding
You've got the URL wrong here; it should be:
h
On Aug 14, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> Have you not considered having a two-level type spec ? One for
> compile-time and one for runtime ? If I'm not wrong, Java did that
> with
> generics.
We do not want a profiled or segmented specification, apart from the
optional strict m
On 8/14/07 12:46 PM, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> The only problem so far is that it seems there is no structural types
> support in AVM2/Tamarin yet, or did I miss it ?
Nope, no support for structural types in AVM2.
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-di
Brendan Eich a écrit :
> On Aug 14, 2007, at 10:10 AM, liorean wrote:
>
>>> Peter Hall wrote:
type B = {b:Self};
>> On 14/08/07, Cormac Flanagan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Yes, I think this should be fine.
>> I'm all for allowing recursive structural types e.g. for use as binary
>> trees
On Aug 14, 2007, at 10:10 AM, liorean wrote:
>> Peter Hall wrote:
>>> type B = {b:Self};
>
> On 14/08/07, Cormac Flanagan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, I think this should be fine.
>
> I'm all for allowing recursive structural types e.g. for use as binary
> trees or linked lists.
>
> type
> Peter Hall wrote:
> > type B = {b:Self};
On 14/08/07, Cormac Flanagan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I think this should be fine.
I'm all for allowing recursive structural types e.g. for use as binary
trees or linked lists.
type BinTree = {sin:Self, dx:Self, value:*};
--
David "liorean
Peter Hall wrote:
> On 8/14/07, Eylon Stroh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From the proposal:
>> "The return type T2 is ok, even if the function returns a T1 instead...
>> covariant occurrences of Self (eg in the result type) are replaced by
>> T2"
>>
>
> I was also wondering about this.
> To me,
Eylon Stroh wrote:
>>From the proposal:
> "The return type T2 is ok, even if the function returns a T1 instead...
> covariant occurrences of Self (eg in the result type) are replaced by
> T2"
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that return types can
> also be placed in context
Peter Hall wrote:
>>> Or can't Self be used outside of the sorts of usage found in the
>>> proposal examples?
>> That's it.
> In that case, I think it needs to be clearer about how the syntax can
> be used. Is it only for use as the "this" parameter for function
> types? Seems to me like it shoul
On 8/14/07, Eylon Stroh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the proposal:
> "The return type T2 is ok, even if the function returns a T1 instead...
> covariant occurrences of Self (eg in the result type) are replaced by
> T2"
>
I was also wondering about this.
To me, if someone writes "Self" for an
thing that allows for stronger typing of y.f?
Eylon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:40 PM
To: Peter Hall
Cc: es4-discuss; Cormac Flanagan
Subject: Re: Self type
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:59
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Peter Hall wrote:
>>> Or can't Self be used outside of the sorts of usage found in the
>>> proposal examples?
>>
>> That's it.
>>
>
> In that case, I think it needs to be clearer about how the syntax can
> be used.
No doubt the proposal needs to be clearer to become a
> > Or can't Self be used outside of the sorts of usage found in the
> > proposal examples?
>
> That's it.
>
In that case, I think it needs to be clearer about how the syntax can
be used. Is it only for use as the "this" parameter for function
types? Seems to me like it should be usable anywhere t
On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:32 AM, Peter Hall wrote:
> I was just reading the Self type proposal for the first time
> (http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:self_type).
Cormac should reply authoritatively since he's the author of that
spec, but I'll have a go.
> Ho
I was just reading the Self type proposal for the first time
(http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:self_type).
How should a compiler handle this keyword? Should it be able to
substitute a concrete type at compile-time, or must the actual type be
evaluated at runtime (possibly with
19 matches
Mail list logo
