On 2010-02-09, Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>> > Would you agree with me that new overload types
>> > *must* default to falling back

>> How would "new" types be different from the "old" ones? The problem
>> existed back then; what changed?

> What changed is that there are now published classes that use some
> overloading, don't specify fallback, and don't overload the new type.
> Take for example the new "qr" overload. Under 5.10 and earlier, treating
> an object as a regex would invoke the stringify overload, so 5.12 must
> continue to do so for objects that don't have a qr overload *even* if
> fallback was not requested.

Hmm, I deduce that under "overload types" you meant "overloaded
operation"? If, yes, of course...

Ilya

Quoth Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>:
> On 2010-02-09, Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
> >> > Would you agree with me that new overload types
> >> > *must* default to falling back
>
> >> How would "new" types be different from the "old" ones? The problem
> >> existed back then; what changed?
>
> > What changed is that there are now published classes that use some
> > overloading, don't specify fallback, and don't overload the new type.
> > Take for example the new "qr" overload. Under 5.10 and earlier, treating
> > an object as a regex would invoke the stringify overload, so 5.12 must
> > continue to do so for objects that don't have a qr overload *even* if
> > fallback was not requested.
>
> Hmm, I deduce that under "overload types" you meant "overloaded
> operation"? If, yes, of course...

Yes, sorry, it was a poor choice of word. 'Type of overload' rather than
'type' as in 'class'.

Ben