Tom; I don't think there are any satisfying reasons for the current
behavior. File native type references (int @ x) as a feature request if it's not already. :)
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.
I think @=> is an unnecessary operator. I like the description from way back that the "@" means "please."
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; fun foo_type ( variable_name @ bar_type) { //code goes here } 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. Oh, well, here be dragons and dragons yield lots of XP so this must be good. Kas.