Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On first impression, having just read the paper "Type restrictions for
> overloading, without restrictions, declarations or annotations",
> I don't think I like system CT very much, because I think declaring
> interfaces is very important for software engineering reasons.
> Experience with C++ has shown that that the lack of declared interfaces
> with C++ templates causes major problems. At first impression, it seems
> to me that a language based on system CT will suffer from the same kinds
> of problems.
And I agree. I propose extending the CT system to allow constraints to
be made on how a function can be overloaded. Functions will still be
allowed to be overloaded in other ways, but only by explicitly stating
that this function violates the rule. These constraints for all intends
and purposed will act like type classes.
--
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
