Qui, 2008-06-26 às 16:03 +0200, Moritz Lenz escreveu: > In the test suite there are some tests like this: > is(1.WHAT, 'Int', '1 as a literal is an Int); > This seems to imply that we guarantee the direct type of literals. But > do we? > Actually I see no need for that. All my programs work fine if the > literal 1 is of type Foo, and Foo isa Int. > What's our policy on that? Will a 1.WHAT always return Int? do we > guarantee (1..4).WHAT always to be 'Range'?
This is something I've been thinking about for some time. $a.WHAT is the way to test for type identity, but allowing the user to expect a literal to be from a specific given type is probably a bad idea, because (1..4).WHAT should probably be ImplementationSpecificConstantCompactIntRange or something like that. But I really think it's a matter of user expectations, if we define that the effective type of the literals are undetermined, the implementations will be free to use optimized types. I think we should promote (1..4) ~~ Range test, instead of (1..4).WHAT === Range or even (1..4).WHAT eq 'Range' daniel
