On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > I really doubt that. Un-guarded downcast was (and still is) taken for > granted as the way these things are done. I'm actually not aware of any > other PL group noticing that Interfaces provide a place to stand for > isolation. 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 not at such a level but the community was well aware after 4-5 years that small interfaces provide a more reliable , flexible and much easier to maintain system which grouping does not , classes can be used for grouping / wrapping. So i would say they knew it intuitively. I certainly knew the issues with down cast before any involvement in caps / bitc every time i did it - it made me nervous. > > 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 would not use capsule at worst a modifier eg interface and guard interface. Ben
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
