Paul Rubin wrote: > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>In other words, you want Python to be strongly-typed, but sometimes >>you want to allow a reference to be to any object whatsoever. In which >>case you can't possibly do any sensible type-checking on it, so this >>new Python+ or whatever you want to call it will suffer from the same >>shortcomings that C++ and java do, which is to say type checking can't >>possibly do anything useful when the acceptable type of a reference is >>specified as ANY. > > > Let's see if I understand what you're saying: > > C and Java: you get useful type checking except when you declare > a reference as type ANY. This is a shortcoming compared to: > > Python: where you get no useful type checking at all. > > That is not very convincing logic.
No, he said that this typechecking wouldn't make sense in the case of ANY being used. And the plethorea of ClassCastExceptions and Segfault proves the point :) Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
