Re: ports as real types...

[Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk>]

> 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?

Humm.  I'm a bit puzzled by this.  What's the reason for lalowing
implementors this freedom?

In general, I think it's better to have primitive built-in types be
disjoint.  It helps when debugging, because it's easier to see what
you've got (or at least I think it is), and it gives the programmer
more freedom to do type tests in the order that is natural for the
program (or just whatever order the programmer happens to write --
since there are fewer ways to go wrong).

-- jeff