I don’t know what you mean here. My proposal would not change anything for literals which are typed as Object.
I’m proposing that literals that are declared as “typdefed” types would be checked against the typedefs. (I like the use of “typedef” as Haxe does rather than “interface” to avoid confusion with real interfaces.) I don’t understand what performance problems you envision and I don’t understand why this would create language issues. Harbs > On Jan 10, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > @Harbs: I am not a language/compiler expert, but I do not think that > languages typically have literals that are automatically coerced to types. I > believe the AST node tree of the literal can be reduced/compiled/transpiled > without knowing that it is part of an assignment statement. I believe your > proposal is to change that, and I am concerned about the compiler performance > and language issues that could arise from that. I would strongly recommend > we don't do that and stay with constructs that are more common to other > languages.
