Reference implementation

[Neal Gafter]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Jonathan Gibbons
<Jonathan.Gibbons at sun.com>wrote:

>  In the short term, we think that the current ("simple") approach is the
> way to go. Long term, we think we will need something like the
> "full-complex" approach that Maurizio has described. That will address the
> need for argument inference. However, we do not have the resources to fully
> investigate that solution at this point.
>

I don't believe that the full-complex approach is both implementable and
upward compatible with the simple approach.  However, it hasn't been
specified in any detail, so it isn't possible for a demonstration to be made
either way.  I'm afraid that the currently integrated approach really is
painting us into a corner.  The "complex" approach is more clearly upward
compatible.  If there are insufficient resources to fully investigate, the
conservative solution would be to implement the "complex" approach (or none
at all).

I find it remarkable that multi-catch was rejected from Coin for veering too
near the type system (even though it doesn't effect the type system), while
at the same time decisions about generic type inference are being included
in Coin even though we lack the resources to fully investigate their
long-term impact.

-Neal