Francoise
The type T1 should not have anything to do with C, (resp T2 and D).
>T1 and T2 must belong to the same class hierarchy, whereas C and D may belong
>to a different class
>hierarchy.
>
Oh dear. My complete failure to understand the intent (confirmed by later
reading of some references, which I should have done to start with). Thanks for
the correction.
Despite the goof, I defend my position that we should aim for more rigorous
definitions. At least my effort was unambiguously wrong!
Based on your observations, I am going to attempt to propose a better
proposal.
The new material helps a lot, I think.
Right now I fear I can't see any difference between "matching or covariant" and
"assignment compatible". Do we really need "covariant", except as a convenient
way to describe the whole business?
Thanks again
--
Jonathan
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Tue Feb 22 00:47:25 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 22 2011 - 00:47:38 PST