Re: [RFC] type safe trees

["Nathanael Nerode" <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>]

Well!

I really like Zack's proposed conversion plan in the PDF,
but particularly the order, and of that particularly the early stages.
I see no problem with the "top level" separation into entirely distinct
base classes, of the sort which require explicit work to treat as a union.
And I don't see a real benefit to worrying about cleaning up the lower levels
until the top level separation is done, since that's by far the ugliest.

I'd probably pause and reevaluate after peeling the "type" type away from
the "tree" type.  We'll already have reaped substantial typechecking
advantages at that point, and it's not worth worrying about the later
stages too early, since it will probably take quite a while to get to that
point.

In other words: Do the first part already, and worry about the later part
later.  :-)

-- 
This space intentionally left blank.