On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > They tend to be thought of as a way to group and package related > functions. The potential uses as isolation wrappers just aren't in the > mindset.
Maybe that's because you're the only one who likes to think of interfaces as wrappers. :) For me, they're different things. What makes your notion of interface _different_ from an existential type? > The real question in my mind is whether there should be two keywords > "interface" and "capsule", one of which allows opening and the other of > which requires a guard. I just hate to use two keywords for the same thing. I don't remember what capsules were, but I like the idea of keeping some notion of supertype or abstract type where downcast/open gets you the same object at a less abstract type. It probably shouldn't be "open", since it's not like the usual existential elim. And it shouldn't be "downcast" if it's not actually subtyping. Maybe "inspect"? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
