Unification and extension of compile-time reflection

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:55 PM, BCS <ao at pathlink.com> wrote:
> Reply to Jarrett,
>
>> The strange is(T U), is(T U : V), is(T U == V) forms.. I'm not sure
>> what to do about those.
>>
>
> #2 & 3 are to allow compact type pattern matching. IIRC there not that good
> at it, but are better than nothing.
>
> It's more or less what you bring up in you last point.
>
> Any solution here should include the ability to ask "does type T match
> pattern P if the symbols A B and C (that are part of P) are defined
> correctly? If so, declared A, B and C as needed". You sort of hint at that
> ability near the end, but it needs to be explicit in the design goals.

OK, explicitly then: those forms remain.  ;)