On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Very sorry.
Don't be. It's your project, and if I'm just making it more difficult it's my fault. > There is one field, which is the existentially encapsulated data > that is accessible to all methods. But the concrete type of that field could be anything, including a unboxed tuple with multiple things. Is that what you're saying? >> OK, but then why would you _want_ to use interfaces instead of objects? > > Perhaps because we don't have objects in the C++/Java/C# sense, or because > we don't have inheritance and thus need facets. Ah that must be it. I was assuming this was some mostly redundant object-like thing, but this _is_ the object-like thing! You're not calling it an object in order to think of the object as the state blob, like you could with OSes, I presume. And by no inheritance, you mean no implementation inheritance as well as no subtyping, right? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
