>From: "Ryan Cromwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:38 PM
> I'm a little confused as to your use of scripting languages as a >argument against type safety. Scripting language types are >resolved at runtime. Depending on the scripting language, >there are different extents of implicit conversion for certain > types, but there are, non-the-less, different types. Scripting languages generally don't have type definitions (with JScript being one notable exception I know). Some have scope declarations, and Perl has an explicit structure indicator, but otherwise Perl, Python, bash (and relatives), PHP and even make don't have type declarations (not that I'd consider make a good example). Now they often do have implicit dynamic types as you point out, and that's ok, but not necessary. Type mismatches can be addressed by using different operators instead of having to declare the type of the variable (e.g. "." for concatenation, "eq" for string comparison, etc.), which is what Perl does. Let me go a step further and say that many instances of arithmetic might be better done functionally, by enhancing tasks. For example, rather than manually counting the number of iterations through a foreach, just provide a 'count="result.name" attribute to foreach that will contain the iteration count. Gary ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click _______________________________________________ Nant-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-users
