Guillaume Laurent wrote: > That's not what I meant. In those languages, you can pretty much do anything > with integers and strings, the existing types are very general (not taking > classes in consideration, of course). It's something I've come to understand > not so long ago : it's better to tolerate faults rather than trying to > enforce correctness.
Ok, although that is an interesting point of view with which I do not wholly disagree, I am not going to debate it here. > Take a very basic one : chars and ints, they are essentially the same type, > and being able to perform arithmetic operations on chars or to compare them > to ints is a huge help. That is confused; char and int are two different types in the C / C++ language specs. What you are illustrating in your example is implicit type conversion up the partial ordering of types in the type hierarchy. Whether that behaviour is considered harmful or helpful is irrelevant; it is a different issue from my point regarding overly general types; it is not a counter-example. William ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the 'Do More With Dual!' webinar happening July 14 at 8am PDT/11am EDT. We invite you to explore the latest in dual core and dual graphics technology at this free one hour event hosted by HP, AMD, and NVIDIA. To register visit http://www.hp.com/go/dualwebinar _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
