On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 17:43 +0100, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > If it is obscure enough that conciseness doesn't matter, I suggest > MutationInsensitivelyCompatible.
Unfortunately, I suspect it is not quite that obscure. I have asked Swaroop to send out an example where it arises. The closest I have come to something seems OK is: Mutable? With the '?' indicating optionality rather than predication. My main concern is that '?' is used by convention to mean predicates elsewhere in LISP-like languages. Predicates do not usually appear in types, however, so maybe this is okay here. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
