On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:37:56PM -0800, chromatic wrote: > On Friday 28 December 2007 04:15:03 Will Coleda wrote: > > > My concern here is HLL interop. I think it would be cleaner to specify > > the base types ( or perhaps a does ) to be generic enough to let > > another language invoke your multis. > > With regard to autoboxing situations, you think the compiler should > detect the use of I, N, and S registers and emit multi invocants > using the equivalent primitive, non-typemapped PMCs?
FWIW, I think that autoboxing of parameters should still be orthogonal to mmd resolution. > I can see that working for autoboxing calls, and I can argue that typemapped > PMCs should be equivalent in terms of distance. How much work is it to > detect these in PAST? I had been hoping that PAST could be somewhat independent of multimethod issues, beyond being able to tag individual arguments or subs with an appropriate mmd signature. Pm
