Difference between revisions of "Talk:Interval types"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:'''--[[User:Manus|manus]] 18:14, 8 July 2007 (CEST)''': This case is just a typical case of implicit covariance. The rules are the same and therefore any feature involving `like Current' in its arguments will most likely be rejected in some cases unless the target is monomorphic. Dont' forget that it is mostly the case with `is_equal' and `copy' which are getting new signatures in the new ECMA standard. For COMPARABLE then it just mean that you won't be able to compare apple with oranges which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. | :'''--[[User:Manus|manus]] 18:14, 8 July 2007 (CEST)''': This case is just a typical case of implicit covariance. The rules are the same and therefore any feature involving `like Current' in its arguments will most likely be rejected in some cases unless the target is monomorphic. Dont' forget that it is mostly the case with `is_equal' and `copy' which are getting new signatures in the new ECMA standard. For COMPARABLE then it just mean that you won't be able to compare apple with oranges which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''--[[User:Schoelle|Schoelle]] 15:30, 10 July 2007 (CEST)''' Thanks for the answer, this was enlighting. Second question: can anybody give examples from the practice that are different from A..A and A..NONE ? Something like A..B that really is needed an makes sense? | ||
Revision as of 04:30, 10 July 2007
--Schoelle 12:33, 8 July 2007 (CEST): Could somebody illustrate how this solves the problem of convariant argument redefinition using 'like Current' or similar?
- --manus 18:14, 8 July 2007 (CEST): This case is just a typical case of implicit covariance. The rules are the same and therefore any feature involving `like Current' in its arguments will most likely be rejected in some cases unless the target is monomorphic. Dont' forget that it is mostly the case with `is_equal' and `copy' which are getting new signatures in the new ECMA standard. For COMPARABLE then it just mean that you won't be able to compare apple with oranges which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
--Schoelle 15:30, 10 July 2007 (CEST) Thanks for the answer, this was enlighting. Second question: can anybody give examples from the practice that are different from A..A and A..NONE ? Something like A..B that really is needed an makes sense?
