Quoting Kenton Varda (2019-09-20 15:01:44) > As to the original question, again, I think what Kuba is trying to do > ought to work.
I think I've come around to agreeing here. > And as to what's allowed at runtime, it seems reasonable that we could > support covariance on struct-typed setters. Since setters make a copy, > there is no soundness concern. I believe this may be correct, after having thought through the details. > I am also not religious about soundness. I prioritize practicality. I wasn't really arguing from a religious standpoint, but I think requiring an explicit cast for possibly-unsound operations is not much of a burden, and has clear benefits from a safety perspective, which are well worth it. It seems like the point is moot in this case though. -Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cap'n Proto" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to capnproto+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/capnproto/156900869365.3109.9045878714299999913%40localhost.localdomain.
