Re: Major change proposal

Paul Prescod wrote:

> Inheriting of interfaces is an interesting issue though. It probably
> makes those classes more useful to languages in the rest of the CLR. I'm
> not as sure how to handle that in the case where you don't have classes.
>
> It almost seems to suggest that you SHOULD have a class concept and that
> concept should map exactly to the CLR strengths and weaknesses. So you
> use prototypes within your Prothon code for all kinds of funky runtime
> things and then classes for statically making code available to other
> CLR languages.

Yes, I've been thinking the exact same thing.  I'm back to thinking of
having the class keyword (and now interfaces) that only does a contract in
Prothon, but in .Net gives you the real .Net classes and interfaces.

BTW:  I think my old use of the term design-by-contract disagreed with  your
meaning (and probably everyone else's).  All I meant by a design-by-contract
feature was something enforced at the language level only for the purpose of
guaranteeing something like a variable's type, or the adherance to an
interface.   I think you were reading something more into the term than
that.