Difference between revisions of "Talk:Single-level call rule and generics"
| 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:16, 15 July 2007
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 --Schoelle 14:02, 15 July 2007 (CEST)
--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 X [A] and X [B]. 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.
