Re: Partial retraction (was: Re: catcalls/convert)

On 30/04/2005, at 8:31 AM, Daniel F Moisset wrote:

>> 12. There is a whole lot of stuff that is apparently designed to make
>>     it possible to ensure at compile time that the target of a call is
>>     not Void. ...
>>     ...  I must stress this:  *every* use of a non-expanded type
>>     in ECMA Eiffel means something different from what it used to 
>> mean.
>
> This is the only change I saw in your list that would be really
> difficult to implement, while accepting the old syntax at the same 
> time.
> I hope it dies in the draft!

I sure don't. Void-safety is exciting.

I'm not so sure that it will invalidate any existing code, let alone 
*every* use of a reference type. There's not much detail yet in ETL3 
Chapter 24, "Eradicating void calls": only three pages. How can you 
arrive at such a conclusion about something that hasn't been fully 
described yet?

- Peter Gummer