Difference between revisions of "Talk:Interval types"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Could somebody illustrate how this solves the problem of convariant argument redefinition using 'like Current' or similar? --[[User: | + | '''--[[User:Schoelle|Schoelle]] 12:33, 8 July 2007 (CEST)''': Could somebody illustrate how this solves the problem of convariant argument redefinition using 'like Current' or similar? |
| + | |||
| + | :'''--[[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. | ||
Revision as of 07:14, 8 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.
