[chuck-users] assignment (BUG?)
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users