[bitc-dev] Resolution: Can boxed types be dropped?

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

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!


Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20110211/50600b68/attachment.html