[chuck-users] assignment (BUG?)
signal.automatique at gmail.com
Sun May 31 19:04:41 EDT 2009
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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users