Re: ports as real types...

[jmiller@crl.dec.com]

Well, my take on this one is very simple: ports should not be REQUIRED
to be disjoint from other types.  The report allows implementors the
freedom to implement ports in any way that seems reasonable.  What
reason can you advance for their being required to be disjoint?

I don't really care if we add a "port?" operation to the report.  In
fact, I proposed it (or supported the proposal, I've forgotten) too
late in the standardization process.   This issues is completely
unrelated to the issue of disjointness, on which I feel quite
strongly -- the fewer disjoint types the better, in my opinion!

--Jim