HaloO, Smylers wrote:
In which case that provides a handy example supporting Larry's suggestion that this is confusing, with some people expecting it to work exactly opposite to how it does.
So the mere fact that there are two sets involved rules out the set operators as well?
It doesn't really matter which way is right -- merely having some people on each side, all naturally deriving what makes sense to them -- shows that implementing this would cause much confusion.
Better suggestions? Other than just writing one or the other in the spec, I mean. I would opt for A(&)B producing the subtype on the footing that this is usually called an intersection type, even though the interfaces are merged. Regards, TSa. --
