Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system

On Jun 27, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:

> Do we think that this is a good way forward? The only thing I can think
> of that's undesirable is that it's not normal to be required to cast the
> result of a function, and might be slightly difficult to explain in the
> documentation in a straightforward way

That's the part that bothers me. I think that if it's not cast it should somehow be useful. Maybe default to a text
rangeor something? 

Best,

David