On 8/16/2012 1:27, Invisible wrote:
> You're probably write. (Depending on how you want to argue about the
> semantics.) My point was just that "oh, it's /obviously/ impossible" isn't
> actually so obvious.

It obviously *is* impossible, if your definition of "type" is "collection of 
values and the operators that transform them into other values."

If you return a private stack, it's not a stack unless I can call push and 
pop on it. It's some other type that's just wrapping up a stack until you 
unwrap it again.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message