I wrote:
> (although, as you can
> see, it makes it impossible to make the type non-abstract by actually
> providing specific bindings, so you should probably rethink your
> approach anyway).
I see Malcolm and I are both typing in Las Vegas simultaneously. Anyway,
this is what he said as well: In practice your goal will not work
regardless of whether NAG issues an error message or warning or nothing
and just lets you endlessly extend abstract upon abstract type.
Best,
Aleks
|