Juliant at 17:16, 15 July 2007

2007-07-15T17:16:04Z

Schoelle at 12:02, 15 July 2007

2007-07-15T12:02:50Z

New page

Look very close to my suggestion, only that I had suggested to reuse the keyword 'invariant' instead of introducing a new keyword 'monomorphic', that not average developer will understand --[[User:Schoelle|Schoelle]] 14:02, 15 July 2007 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 15 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Look very close to my suggestion, only that I had suggested to reuse the keyword 'invariant' instead of introducing a new keyword 'monomorphic', that not average developer will understand --[[User:Schoelle\|Schoelle]] 14:02, 15 July 2007 (CEST)		Look very close to my suggestion, only that I had suggested to reuse the keyword 'invariant' instead of introducing a new keyword 'monomorphic', that not average developer will understand --[[User:Schoelle\|Schoelle]] 14:02, 15 July 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	'''--[[User:Juliant\|Juliant]] 19:16, 15 July 2007 (CEST)''' This is a different problem. Your proposal about invariant generics is about ''conformance'' between generic parameters, i.e. conformance between <e>X [A]</e> and <e>X [B]</e>. What I'm trying to point out is the ''use'' of features on a formal generic parameter which are covariantly redefined. The possible solution for ''like Current'' features with the monomorphic keyword is about the instantation of the generic. A monomorphic generic can only be instantiated with a monomorphic type.
		+
		+	You can also look at it that way: With your ''invariant'' generic, you can use the generic as a feature argument. With a ''monomorph'' generic, you can call covariant features which have ''like Current'' in the argument.

Talk:Single-level call rule and generics - Revision history

Juliant at 17:16, 15 July 2007

Schoelle at 12:02, 15 July 2007