On Wednesday 11 August 2004 01:45, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> I think true/false works well enough. If a language to describe implicit
> schemas comes along, then perhaps worry about mapping true/false to other
> languages or neutralizing it with '==' and '<>' values.
Well, yes, but its nice to have a language-agnostic format. I think + and !
are OK for that. At any rate...
> Anyway, I think of implicits as a function of the loader. It's great to
> have it in the spec, and quite handy when they load automatically in Ruby,
> but perhaps the base spec should just be map/seq/string, and implicit types
> should be up to the loading mechanism and the programmers who invoke it.
That's the case already, We are NOT discussing how to define bool in the spec
- the spec doesn't define the !bool tag in any way. We are discussing how to
define the !bool tag in the type respository, which serves as a recommended
set of tags for the loader you mention.