[chuck-users] assignment (BUG?)

Kassen signal.automatique at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 18:38:42 EDT 2009


> I really think the problem is simple. (Sorry if I missunderstand part of
> the discussion but is complicated to me understand some English styles).

I think you got everything. Please tell me if something that I write is
confusing to you and I'll try to write it differently.

We have one "massive overloaded chuck operator" and a reference assignement
> operator that haven't defined it behavior on primitive values.

Yes, as far as I can see you are right. This is no big problem but it does
look a bit inconsistent and confusing to me.

Maybe Tom feels differently, he seems to feel we don't need any assignment
at all. I don't think I agree with that but it's a interesting idea to say
the least.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20090602/23676292/attachment.html>

More information about the chuck-users mailing list