Antoon Pardon wrote: > Then argue against my ideas, and not your makings of it. > > If I just use 'ANY' and you fill that in with C void* like > implementation and argue against that, then you are arguing > against your own ghosts, but not against what I have in mind.
Well, you didn't tell us what you had in mind. You just said "let's introduce something like any". I showed you existing implementations of such a concept that have problems. You say "thats not what _I_ have in mind, so your criticism doesn't apply." Guess what, I can't read your mind. But you did not tell me in what your idea is different from existing concepts. > You have not counterd my idea with criticism. You have decorated my > idea with how you think it would be implemented (C void*) and argued > against that. I don't need to give an implementation to notice, that > you jumped to a particular implementation and basicly just countered > that implementation, not the idea in general. Again - where is your idea layed out in (more) detail, so that one can discuss them? That was all that I'm asking - which of course you carefully avoided... > As far as I'm concerned that was just meant as a matter of fact remark, > with no snide intentions. Where exactly come the facts? All I see is some vague "there should be something better, by introducing ANY". But no details how typechecking then would work. I showed you that existing type systems can't properly cope with ANY so far and allow for much errors. Just saying "but mine won't" is a little bit thin, don't you think?l Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
