Tom;<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I don't think there are any satisfying reasons for the current<br>
behavior. File native type references (int @ x) as a feature request<br>
if it's not already. :)<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Well, yes. I'm waiting for Ge though, there may be good reasons for this that link to future plans but right now I see no point to the current situation.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
I think @=> is an unnecessary operator. I like the description from<br>
way back that the "@" means "please."<br>
<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>That was likely my comment. That was mostly related to Mike's attempts to do fairly odd/advanced things. In that code were things (I believe introduced by Spencer?) that went like;<br>
<br>fun foo_type ( variable_name @ bar_type)<br> {<br> //code goes here<br> }<br></div></div><br>I still have no idea what that "@" was doing there but I'm quite sure that isn't documented usage. I gave ignoring that a good go. I do think "@=>" has a real uses that can't be had otherwise and I still believe that and some extra casts here&there are symptoms of the current type-system issues. Those needn't be related to the question of whether or not a int is a object and whether we should be able to assign to them. I'm open to opinions on the use of @=> though, we do seem to use it mainly to get around issues and I could imagine more versatile alternatives in some cases.<br>
<br>Oh, well, here be dragons and dragons yield lots of XP so this must be good.<br><br>Kas.<br>