ok we are in sync. Stef
On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> Strange this is not what gilad mentioned. >> A pluggable type system: you can plug multiples one and the runtime is not >> influenced by type systems. >> > > Yes. > > Gradual Typing is *not* about multiple type systems. It's just *one* Type > System. Which has the > nice property of dealing nicely with code in the case of having no type > annotations. > > One can implement Gradual Typing without any Pluggable Types. Then it's the > only type-system the > language has. Type-check would in this case not be optional. It would be > always done, but without > annotations leading to no static checking done. But it could actually > influence the language semantics > (e.g. one could imagine a language that compiles in dynamic checks following > the gradual type > checker in the case of no annotation. Instead of a runtime that has the > checks build in like smalltalk). > > In turn, one could provide a Type-System based on Gradual Typing *on top* of > a Pluggable Types > infrastrustructure.This then would be a type-system that is optional, not > influencing language semantics. > > So both are orthogonal. But of course related. (how to type-check dynamic > systems without making them static). > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
