On 20 January 2015 at 20:26, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Domenic Denicola wrote: >> >>> Nominal-typing bad! >>> >> >> That "X-typing bad!" line is not helpful. (What is this, a sports/beer >> commercial?) >> >> Even structural typing fans such as Mark Miller have noted in their >> research results the benefits of nominal types for certain use-cases. >> Sometimes you need to know your implementation. This is the exception to >> the rule, but it's not always and everywhere "bad!". > > > Yes, but I would put it more positively. Nominal and Structural typing are > about different things. Neither subsume the other. Nominal types are often > misunderstood to be about the string-name of types or some equally > non-generative notion of type, so I prefer to use the brand terminology. > The classic Types are Not Sets < > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=512927.512938>, IIRC, uses the term > "trademarking" instead with the same meaning. If anyone has a link to the > actual pdf, please post. > Indeed. In practice, all proper type systems combine both structural and nominal elements. Both are needed. Many mainstream languages being overly structurally challenged notwithstanding. /Andreas
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
