Re: Issue-114

On 2 Jul 2008, at 14:12, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

> Hi,
> On 2 jul 2008, at 15:06, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> And Class/Datatype punning? That's disallowed, too, at the moment  
>> [1].
> I'd say we subject this type of punning to the same scrutiny as  
> with the others, in Peter's words:
> On 2 jul 2008, at 14:15, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> to not remove any more punning, on the multiple grounds that it  
>> has been
>> requested, that it doesn't appear to cause any technical problems,  
>> that
>> it has been implemented, and inertia
> *snip*
>> PS:  If the above rationale is not adequate to retain this  
>> feature, then I
>> don't see how any request to add a feature can pass muster.

This sounds good to me. I'm not sure why class/datatype punning was  
removed. If there's no technical reason against it, we should add it  
back on the grounds that *if* anyone ever does do such punning,  
implementations will immediately have to accommodate it. I can even  
think of some cases where I might want to do it (to avoid coining a  
new name).


Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:17:56 UTC