From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@be...> - 2004-08-15 17:29:19
|
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. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |