> My understanding was just that TypeType's currently are *not* used
> when creating type aliases.
Correct.
> # Passing the type name/alias as a value.
> # The local variable/argument 'x' becomes of type
> # "TypeType". It's not of type "count".
> foo(mytype);
(Note that here any attributes are lost, since there's currently no
place for TypeType's to hold them.)
> At least that's how I think it's currently working, so are you going
> start using TypeType as a means of type aliasing in addition to adding
> attributes to them?
Not quite. Rather, the type of "mytype" would be a TypeType, which would
have attributes. The TypeType instance however would not know that it
belongs to "mytype" (just as is currently the case).
We could continue to support a call like "foo(mytype)" above by hoisting
the base type (what the TypeType points to) when evaluating the expression
"mytype", just as currently the identifier gets turned into a TypeType at
that point. That said, just what is the use for calls like "foo(mytype)"
anyway? Seems a bit peculiar, but maybe I'm missing something.
Vern
_______________________________________________
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
