Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 09:50 AM 8/6/2002 -0700, Jeff Lowery wrote: >In order to validate a universal type, a constraint system would have to be >applied that defined the lexical and value space (range) that is applicable >to a specific program environment. It's like a locale for types. Locales >would be comparable, so that you could determine programmatically how the >lexical/range definitions of one locale intersect another. You would then >know which out-of-bounds conditions are possible. Instead of describing these things as "X is of type Y", I'm thinking it might be easier to define the value space through a transformation from a lexical representation to a set of values which may or may not involve an explicit cast operation. I'm much happier saying "treat X as of type Y for this operation" - that leaves a lot more flexibility and room for fallbacks. (Thinking about things like scientific notation makes me think that fallbacks to multiple possible approaches for something as simple as a 'float' makes sense.) Simon St.Laurent "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
