On 1/19/06, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could you provide a concrete example of the advantage of this approach > please? Failing that can you try and expand on your gut feeling a > bit?
May or may not be of use, but Larry's view sounds a bit like reconcilling the (again considered irreconcilable) gap between nominal and structural subtyping: http://cakoose.com/wiki/type_system_terminology#13 Where the "empty" class object is the degenerate case of the smallest possible structural type, so it can be fulfilled by anything more structurally rich as long as they share the same nominal constraint. Audrey
