>> In my version of the README, I use "statically typed" instead of >> "strongly typed". >> >> I have a strong desire to put "static" here (in contrast to dynamic). >> "strongly typed" doesn't seem to be sooo clear according to >> >> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2690544/what-is-the-difference-between-a-strongly-typed-language-and-a-statically-typed >> >> or >> >> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2351190/static-dynamic-vs-strong-weak >> >> If I look at what they write in the first reference than with our >> "pretend" keyword, SPAD would be weakly typed. > > IMO "strongly typed" is better. There are at least as strong > objections to "statically typed" (namely our types are runtime, > that is dynamic thing).> I think that some fuzzines of "strongly typed" sends > right message.
Well, for me "stong" does not tell me anything, "static" does. We should maybe rather be more precise and mention "parametric dependent types" in the README. What we create at runtime are the actual instances of (parametric) types. Still everything is type-checked at compile-time. To find a better compromise, maybe we avoid "static" and "strong" altogehter and rather replace it with their meaning in the context of SPAD, i.e., a SPAD program must be type-correct at compile-time. It's a bit tricky with IntegerMod(n) when n is a variable. Aldor requires that n is constant for such cases. People not knowing what "strongly-typed" is might search here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing Does that really reflect THE distinguished feature of FriCAS. Personally, I like very much that I know that when my program can be compiled that there are at least not typing errors in it. Maybe we can agree on "strongly and statically typed". ;-) >>> It is hopefully correct .rst. >> >> If you do not want a program like "retext" you can commit it to a >> temporary git branch, 'foo' say, push it to github and then look how >> github shows the text. It's easy to remove the branch from github via >> >> git push origin :foo >> >> You just shouldn't indent the itemized stuff. But it wouldn't hurt too >> much in this case. > > Hmm. I actually run 'sphinx-build' and looked at resulting > .html. Without indent itemized stuff was mangled. With > indent it looked OK. README.rst will not go through sphinx. I is just rendered by github. And as for bulleted lists ... https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#bullet-lists Ralf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/3e668ffb-7e60-779f-0b7a-fd93ae0be708%40hemmecke.org.
