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
