[DGD] Re: My idea for the DGD driver - validate

[Michael McKiel]

Felix A. Croes wrote:
> But -- that's definitely changing the language.  Typechecking modes
> merely make mandatory what is already possible in typechecking mode 0.
> Increasing the typechecking level doesn't change the meaning of code
> which is valid at both levels (all right, there are some borderline
> cases because of the difference between 0 and nil).  A change that
> would be more in line with typechecking modes would be to require a
> 'public', 'static' or 'private' class specifier for each function.

Not really to disagree, but slightly... typechecking 2 does make a change
more than 0/nil, it requires varargs to be moved from the function
declaration to inside the parameters list, to where the first varargs
variable is to occur. It also makes telnet_connect() have to have an 'int
port' that's not required at typechecking 0.

Zam


______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd