[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: function signature type checking
Bruce Hoult wrote:
> It may be simply that it was difficult to see precisely what the
> difficulties might *be* until there were actual implementations of the
> language. Real compilers have to deal with function signatures, and
> they do, but the design of how to do it while coping with all possible
> "hair" may have been best found operationally rather than specified
> a-priori.
>
> In which case it may now be time to go back and codify practise.
You might well be right, but your argument would be a lot stronger if
the language extension in question were actually implemented, not just
something which is similar but may well not be identical.
So, in that sense, it might be time to practice the extension and then
codify it, but what you suggested can't be done because it hasn't been
practiced yet.
References: