"S.D.Mechveliani" wrote:
> D. Tweed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 1 Jun 2000
>
> >> We also may paste
> >> True :: Bool instead of False
> >> (the type design does not help),
> >> x / 0 instead of x / 2,
> >> take n xs instead of take (-n) xs
> >> We also may forget to write a program and try to use it.
>
> > Do you really believe the general principle that `if something is
> > inherently error prone then something is only worth doing if it solves all
> > the errors completely, not if it only makes things slightly less error
> > prone?' That would suggest that strong typing, haskell style modules and
> > numerous other innovations are mistakes made in the language design
> > process.
>
> I meant: if 3/4 of errors still remain after the perfect type design,
> maybe, the place of this type design is not so important.
I totally disagree. I would say that at most 1/4 of the errors remain
when you've fixed the type errors. Perhaps you're not taking full
advantage of the type system? Using Char for a mode would certainly
be a case of not using the type system to your advantage.
Never reuse types! Make new types for everything! :)
--
-- Lennart
