Re: Larch "oversight"
To: "Stephen J. Garland" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Larch "oversight"
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 11:16:30 -0800
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, horning
Delivery-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 11:16:36 -0800
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 06 Dec 95 11:15:42 -0500 from "Stephen J. Garland" <email@example.com>
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
If I were doing it over, I would probably require sort declaration, as in