in c# and Java it is a bad thing but sometimes useful as a quick and dirty. Having it designer specified sounds a lot better.
Note in c# the use of dynamic to force compiler to allow any assign and handle at runtime. If dynamic was around in v1 they probably would have been stricter on down cast. It is useful in a dispatcher to overloaded methods which is more flexible /extendible than switch /condition schemes ( though the dispatcher is not interested in the contents only what in cane be downcast to) . re interfaces having types .. if it was per the interface discussion we were having 8 months ago , certainly they would have some optional defined type constraints. I'm not sure if Jonathan has explored this further. Ben On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The reason you want other options is so you can do things like the > > sealer/unseal pattern. > > You're saying BitC wouldn't have any other practical rights > amplification technique (with which to implement seals) without this > addition? > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
