Paul Rubin a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Nope, he just asserted something wrong. Static typing is for compiler >>optimization. Type checking is at most a side effect, and in some >>languages (at least C, C++ and Java) can be totally defeated (usually >>using typecasting). > > > "Definitions of type system vary, but the following one due to > Benjamin C. Pierce roughly corresponds to the current consensus in > the programming language theory community: > > [A type system is a] tractable syntactic method for proving the > absence of certain program behaviors by classifying phrases > according to the kinds of values they compute. (Pierce 2002)."
Is this supposed to contradict my assertion that *static* typing is for compilers ? C (and C++) are statically typed. It's usually agreed that C is weakly typed, and that C++ is somewhat more strongly typed. In both cases, you can totally defeat compile-time type-checking, with possibly some very unpredictable results. Python is dynamically typed, but doesn't allow the kind of results you can get from a C typecast. > -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory#Type_system > C and C++ are basically untyped languages. Hem... This assertion is at least debatable. Care to post this on c.l.c or c.l.c++, so we get some feedback ? > Java casts can only > partially defeat its type system, In Java, an erroneous typecast will result in a runtime error. Where's the benefit of static typechecking if you can get type errors at runtime? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
