OK, that’s reasonable, I look forward to it being one.
On 16 Sep 2014, at 5:14 pm, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
> There are a limited number of things that can be called like a function.
> Abstract types aren't one of them. It requires a lot of work to change that
> and it affects just a
There are a limited number of things that can be called like a function.
Abstract types aren't one of them. It requires a lot of work to change that and
it affects just about everything. But we are headed in that direction.
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Sheehan Olver wrote:
>
>
> I'm wonderi
I'm wondering the reason the code below doesn't work? Sometimes its nice
to have a single constructor that chooses the return subtype. I can work
around this by calling it AbstractFoo, so it only means have 2 names, but
I'm not sure I see why it is disallowed.
abstract Foo
type PrivateFoo
