--- Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But mad or not, there are some good reasons to do just > that. First, it makes it possible to write interfaces to > other > languages in Perl. Second, it gives the optimizer more > information to think about. Third, it allows the S&M folks to > inflict strongly typed compile-time semantics on each > other. (Which is fine, as long as they don't inflict those > semantics on the rest of us.) Fourth, a type system can be > viewed as a pattern matching system for multi-method > dispatch. > > shouldn't that be B&D and not S&M?
I believe that depends on whether you consider strongly typed compile-time semantics as being restrictive or painful. I also suspect that showing too much acumen about the classification may come back to haunt you at a Perl Conference ... ;-> =Austin
