Re: [dylan] ^known-disjoint? and singleton / union subtyping

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA384

Hi,

On 06/07/2014 05:58, Bruce Mitchener wrote:
> define method ^known-disjoint? (t1 :: <&singleton>, t2 ::
> <&union>) => (known-disjoint? :: <boolean>) 
> ^known-disjoint?(t1.^singleton-object, t2) end method
> ^known-disjoint?;

Oh, I did not realize when merging that this is wrong... define
generic ^known-disjoint? (t1 :: <&type>, t2 :: <&type>) -- is soecfied
on <&type>, not on <object>!

> Anyone have some thoughts on this? (I'm rather busy with some other
> things this weekend.)

What about ^known-disjoint(t1, t2.union-type1) && ^known-disjoint(t1,
t2.union-type2) ?
That would mean that both unionees have to be disjoint from the
singleton..


Hannes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD)
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=PHqo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----