HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 03:16:50PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandla�)" wrote:
sub equitype ( ::a $x, a $y) { ... }
That's not a bad idea at all. I rather like it. I'd just still like an
explicit type-unifying parens around ::a, just so people won't say
I try to m
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 03:16:50PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandla�)" wrote:
>sub equitype ( ::a $x, a $y) { ... }
That's not a bad idea at all. I rather like it. I'd just still like an
explicit type-unifying parens around ::a, just so people won't say
sub foo (::Int $x) { ... }
and acciden
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
[..] For example, assuming argument types are unified in a single
phase, the example below does nothing useful:
sub equitype ((::a) $x, (::a) $y) { ... }
It won't not help even if we replace the implicit "does" with "of":
sub equitype ($x of (::a), $y of (:
Suppose we have a function that takes an argument and returns something
with the same type as that argument. One previous suggestion is this:
sub identity ((::a) $x) returns ::a { return(...) }
This is fine if both invariants in the "the meaning of 'returns'" thread
are observed, since the i
