At 04:36 PM 1/12/05 +0100, Alex Martelli wrote: >I already know -- you told us so -- that if I had transitivity as you wish >it (uncontrollable, unstoppable, always-on) I could not any more write and >register a perfectly reasonable adapter which fills in with a NULL an >optional field in the adapted-to interface, without facing undetected >degradation of information quality by that adapter being invisibly, >uncontrollably chained up with another -- no error message, no nothing, no >way to stop this -- just because a direct adapter wasn't correctly written >and registered. But why would you *want* to do this, instead of just explicitly converting? That's what I don't understand. If I were writing such a converter, I wouldn't want to register it for ANY implicit conversion, even if it was non-transitive!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4