[scala] Re: Why are Scala's actors untyped?

martin odersky wrote:
> Note that Actor inherits from OutputChannel, which is typed. So you can write:

True, but this leads to the following questions:

- Why does Actor "hide" the type parameter of supertrait OutputChannel?

- The "OutputChannel.receiver" method seems a bit misplaced, hard
linking an OutputChannel to an Actor. What's its purpose?

- If you want to send typed messages with a reply, are you meant to use
the Channel class?

- Why does "Channel.?" have return type Msg, while "Channel.!?" has
return type Any?

- Why does Channel use the same type parameter for both the InputChannel
and the OutputChannel? It would often be useful to have separate types
for sent and received messages.

/Jesper Nordenberg