Re: Larch "oversight"


Thanks for the analysis.

I think this is a case of one oversight "saving" us from a different
oversight.  I cannot recall that we ever really thought about either of
these cases.  They are artifacts of the way LSL evolved from a purely
algebraic language.  Recall that originally the comparison operator `='
had to be declared like any other operator.  Thus there wasn't anything
interesting to say about a sort that wasn't in the signature of any of the
declared operators.

If I were doing it over, I would probably require sort declaration, as in

Jim H.