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

>From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" <[email protected]>
>Surely we can agree on the following points?
>(1) Ensuring at compile time that as many calls as possible are void-safe
>     is a Good Thing.
>(2) If we were designing a language de novo, making the common case (I do
>     NOT intend this argument to be Void) the easy one to express would be
>     a Good Thing.
>(3) Eiffel already exists; it is not being designed de novo but revised.

We can certainly agree on all of the above :-)

>(4) When something changes from meaning "this could be Void" to meaning
>     "this may not be Void" that is an incompatible change.

Impossible to say. We haven't seen the full exposition yet, because Bertrand 
Meyer is still writing it.

I suspect they have some trick up their sleeve. Unlike the SmartEiffel team, 
the Eiffel Software team is always very cautious about breaking existing 
code, so I would be astonished if they invalidated all existing Eiffel code.

Note that when the idea of Void-safety first appeared in ETL3 a few months 
ago it involved a scheme whereby if you wanted Void-safety you had to ask 
for it. Then, suddenly, it changed radically. It seemed to me that the ECMA 
committee had realised that they didn't have to be so cautious.

- Peter Gummer