[bitc-dev] Resolution: Can boxed types be dropped?
Jonathan S. Shapiro
shap at eros-os.org
Fri Feb 11 22:55:01 PST 2011
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:57 PM, wren ng thornton <wren at freegeek.org> wrote:
> My other thought on the whole issue is that, instead of thinking about
> C-style pointers, it may be prudent to consider the constructor tag for
> unions as part of the reference rather than as part of the referent....
In an impure language where a union's content can be overwritten by another
value of compatible type, this implementation isn't correct - which is why
I'm looking from the other point of view.
> But you should consider whether this ontological
> separation sheds light on the semantic and syntactic issues you're
> running into.
That is a useful suggestion, and thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitc-dev