On 11/26/2012 05:18 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:58:47 -0500, Dave Angel wrote: > >> In a statically typed language, the valid types >> are directly implied by the function parameter declarations, while in a >> dynamic language, they're defined in the documentation, and only >> enforced (if at all) by the body of the function. > > Well that certainly can't be true, because you can write functions > without *any* documentation at all, and hence no defined type > restrictions that could be enforced:
That's backwards. Any body should be a bug in that case. It doesn't matter what you pass to a function that is unspecified, it's behavior is undefined. Calling it is inherently illegal. > > def trivial_example(x): > return x+1 > > No documentation, and so by your definition above this should be weakly > typed and operate on any type at all. Since there are no type > restrictions defined, the body cannot enforce those type restrictions. > But that's clearly not true. > > Please, everybody, before replying to this thread, please read this: > > http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/ I read part of it, and it's more than I care to read tonight. It seems to be written by an anonymous person. By jumping around in his blog, I see a lot of interesting articles, but i haven't yet figured out who he is. Does he have a name? A degree, a job in computers, a reputation? -- DaveA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
