From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <624e56d4bc299dc1b5658d3a56c32c25@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] useful language extension, or no?
From: "rob pike, esq." <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:08:32 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cda80106-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Suppose I'm not saying "why," but "why not."  IMO it's cleaner and
> quite possibly more efficient (without getting into a usec argument,
> please).  Do you disagree?

Yes.  The benefit is minor, too small to justify changing the language.
You're trying to formalize an idiom; just using the idiom suits me fine.

The type inclusion feature, I think, did a lot more, since it trigged type
conversion and promotion: a much bigger deal.

-rob