On Sun, 2005-05-15 at 13:33 -0500, Rod Adams wrote: > Aaron Sherman wrote: > > >In reviewing S29 as it stands now, I see that many builtins both receive > >and return boxed basic types.
> My thoughts on writing it were: > > The boxed version is the specification, in that the language must > support them. Think about using a SubType somewhere, and you see why. Ok, that makes sense. > However, I also fully expected implementations to add an easy > optimization of including unboxed equivalents and letting MMD sort it out. And this makes sense too. Thanks Rod!
