On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Speaking of confusion if you keep HasField, then i would have a seperate > HasMethod . Keeping it seperate makes it very clear when your using a > method vs a delegate field. > I'm still not clear what you mean by a delegate field. But from a typing perspective what you propose is wrong. A method is simply a field having method type. The one that's more interesting is has-static-method, because that one is not just sugar. > Should HasField be removed from the user and subsumed by interfaces ? > It can't be, because HAS-FIELD describes cases that interfaces do not, and interfaces are potentially matched by HAS-FIELD.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
