Lots of things will have default stringifications, say, that may not
always merit the contrary force of "but". Maybe "but" should be
needed only when a method has already been mixed in anonymously.
Oops, that would wreck the canonical example of "0 but true". Since
the Bool(Int) method alr
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Green wrote:
> I'm wondering whether we can make use of the contrary sense implied by the
> word "but", and have it apply specifically to cases where something is being
> overridden. In cases where there isn't something to override we could use a
> different
David Green wrote:
I'm wondering whether we can make use of the contrary sense implied by
the word "but", and have it apply specifically to cases where
something is being overridden. In cases where there isn't something
to override we could use a different word, such as "with".
I must admit
On 2009-Dec-3, at 8:42 pm, Jon Lang wrote:
"but" _can_ change existing behavior, but doesn't have to. So
"with" becomes the safe version of run-time composition,
guaranteeing that whatever you mix in won't disturb existing
behavior, and "but" becomes the unsafe version that you can fall
b
