HaloO,
from the recent threads 'class interface of roles',
'set operations for roles' and 'signature subtyping
and role merging' I wonder how typish roles actually
are. Some seem to consider roles as lightweight
particles that serve to compose classes. I see them
as the heavyweights in the type d
In a message dated Wed, 25 Oct 2006, TSa writes:
from the recent threads 'class interface of roles', 'set operations for
roles' and 'signature subtyping and role merging' I wonder how typish
roles actually are. Some seem to consider roles as lightweight particles
that serve to compose classes.
HaloO,
Trey Harris wrote:
In other words, I agree that it's fuzzy, but I personally read the
fuziness as intentional, so as to allow implementations flexibility and
prevent bad dependencies on particular "inner workings" of the type system.
Thanks for the support. I figured that I've asked th
TSa wrote:
I want to summarize what we have so far.
1) In type constraint position we can say things like A|B to effectively
mean a supertype of A and B by virtue of $_ ~~ A || $_ ~~ B.
Right. This would be equivalent to "Any where {.does(A) or .does(B)}".
2) We have A&B and the A B jux
