- From: Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:39:25 +0200
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "es-discuss@mozilla.org" <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
[+es-discuss] On 10 May 2013 21:05, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@google.com> wrote: > On 10 May 2013 14:52, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: >> An upper case type variable, e.g. T, is fully parametric. It may be a >> promise or non-promise. >> A lower case type variable, e.g. t, is constrained to be a non-promise. If >> you wish to think in conventional type terms, consider Any the top type >> immediately split into Promise and non-promise. Thus type parameter t is >> implicitly constrained to be a subtype of non-promise. > > Mark, I'm afraid such a distinction makes absolutely no sense in a > world of structural types. How would you specify the set of "types > that aren't promises" in a way that is compatible with structural > subtyping? > > /Andreas
Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 19:40:15 UTC