(j3.2004-323) Re: New Kinds of Kinds
From: Aleksandar Donev ([log in to unmask])
Date: Sun Feb 15 2004 - 11:35:06 EST
Next message: Aleksandar Donev: "(j3.2004-324) GENERIC packages"
Previous message: James Giles: "(j3.2004-322) Re: New Kinds of Kinds"
In reply to: James Giles: "(j3.2004-320) Re: New Kinds of Kinds"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Giles wrote:
> It's when working on this kind of thing that the
> weaknesses of not having just NONKIND appears most vividly.
Maybe, but there is a strong argument the other way. How about a type
parameter which is itself a type (think genericity). Is this a KIND
parameter, or a NONKIND? By restricting the type of the parameters to
integers, we forgave the option of calling it NONKIND--it was simply not
clear that in the future we would not add something that was incompatible
(for example, had more restrictions) than what we have there already. The
choice of LEN may not be the best, but I do not see this is a big deal.
Aleks
--
J. Giles
|