Hi Larry,
Thank you for the comment.
> It seems like what you're describing here is more user-customizable
> autoboxing than anything to do with union types.
Your first statement ("user-customizable autoboxing") is probably fair to say.
OTOH, rather than say "anything to do with union type"
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thanks again.
>
> > So let me start out by clarifying that what *I* was suggesting with unions
> > is quite a different concept than you’re talking about.
>
> I did not realize you were proposing a different solution,
> On 9 Sep 2019, at 02:11, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> I did not realize you were proposing a different solution, too. Sorry I
> missed that.
>
I didn’t mean in terms of an actual proposal, more so identifying what I think
would be more intuitive (mostly based on what others have
Hi Stephen,
Thanks again.
> So let me start out by clarifying that what *I* was suggesting with unions is
> quite a different concept than you’re talking about.
I did not realize you were proposing a different solution, too. Sorry I missed
that.
> yes, I’m aware there’s potential ambiguous
> On 9 Sep 2019, at 00:44, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thank you for the follow up.
>
> I am heading out for a week-long conference later today and not sure if I
> will have time to participate on the list for a while so I wanted to get a
> quick reply to you before I leave.
>
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for the follow up.
I am heading out for a week-long conference later today and not sure if I will
have time to participate on the list for a while so I wanted to get a quick
reply to you before I leave.
> In terms of how I would see it working -
In hindsight I should
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 17:21, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thank you again for the reply.
>
>> and wasn’t really built for that purpose AFAIK, but in ‘weak’ mode (i.e. no
>> strict_types=1) it would be invoked if the destination type specified a
>> string. I was implying that this
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 14:37, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to comment.
>
>> It seems like you’re trying to allow for type conversions in a predictable
>> manner,
>
> Correct.
>
>> but in a very different way than php already does that with built in
Before responding to your points let me reiterate that I made the proposal as
much to generate discussion on ideas that I was not seeing discussed as to see
*my* proposal get selected and implemented. So I like to think I won't be
defensive about any criticism, and will be happy if the only
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 11:22, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Hi Côme,
>
>> This example is really confusing me more than anything else.
>
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback. You illustrated perfectly why I
> should not have produced that proposal in haste.
>
> Your confusion was due to my
Den fre. 6. sep. 2019 kl. 08.33 skrev Mike Schinkel :
>
> Hi Kalle,
>
> Thank you so much for your feedback.
>
>
> I am not sure of the list etiquette. Should I respond to all your points
> here and possibly generate a lot of emails, or ask that we move the comments
> to my Gist?
You are
Hi Kalle,
Thank you so much for your feedback.
I am not sure of the list etiquette. Should I respond to all your points here
and possibly generate a lot of emails, or ask that we move the comments to my
Gist?
-Mike
> On Sep 6, 2019, at 1:20 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Den
Hi
Den fre. 6. sep. 2019 kl. 07.22 skrev Mike Schinkel :
> Thank you very much for your feedback. You illustrated perfectly why I
> should not have produced that proposal in haste.
>
> Your confusion was due to my first draft errors, which thanks to your
> feedback I have hopefully had a
Hi Côme,
> This example is really confusing me more than anything else.
Thank you very much for your feedback. You illustrated perfectly why I should
not have produced that proposal in haste.
Your confusion was due to my first draft errors, which thanks to your feedback
I have hopefully had
14 matches
Mail list logo
