Chris Smith wrote:
What makes static type systems interesting is not the fact that these
logical processes of reasoning exist; it is the fact that they are
formalized with definite axioms and rules of inference, performed
entirely on the program before execution, and designed to be entirely
John Thingstad wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:11:22 +0200, Anton van Straaten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
\sarcasm One step further, and somebody starts calling C a latently
memory-safe language, because a real programmer knows that his code
is in a safe subset
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
Anton van Straaten schrieb:
Marshall wrote:
Can you be more explicit about what latent types means?
Sorry, that was a huge omission. (What I get for posting at 3:30am.)
The short answer is that I'm most directly referring to the types in
the programmer's head
David Hopwood wrote:
But since the relevant feature that the languages in question possess is
dynamic tagging, it is more precise and accurate to use that term to
describe them.
So you're proposing to call them dynamically-tagged languages?
Also, dynamic tagging is only a minor help in this
Marshall wrote:
Chris F Clark wrote:
I'm particularly interested if something unsound (and perhaps
ambiguous) could be called a type system. I definitely consider such
things type systems.
I don't understand. You are saying you prefer to investigate the
unsound over the sound?
The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this context, the term latently-typed language refers to the
language that a programmer experiences, not to the subset of that
language which is all that we're typically able to formally define.
That language is not a subset, if at all, it's the other way round,
David Hopwood wrote:
I can accept that dynamic tagging provides some support for latent typing
performed in the programmer's head. But that still does not mean that
dynamic tagging is the same thing as latent typing
No, I'm not saying it is, although I am saying that the former supports
the
Chris Smith wrote:
Dr.Ruud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The 'dynamic type' is just another type.
That's essentially equivalent to giving up. I doubt many people would
be happy with the conclusion that dynamically typed languages are typed,
but have only one type which is appropriate for
David Hopwood wrote:
Anton van Straaten wrote:
...
When you get to more complex cases, though, most type inferencers for
Scheme assign traditional static-style types to terms. If you think
about this in conjunction with the term latent types, it's an obvious
connection to make that what
Marshall wrote:
Anton van Straaten wrote:
But beyond that, there's an issue here about the definition of the
language. When programming in a latently-typed language, a lot of
action goes on outside the language - reasoning about static properties
of programs that are not captured
Chris Smith wrote:
I don't recall who said what at this
point, but earlier today someone else posted -- in this same thread --
the idea that static type advocates want to classify some languages as
untyped in order to put them in the same category as assembly language
programming. That's
Marshall wrote:
The short answer is that I'm most directly referring to the types in
the programmer's head.
In the database theory world, we speak of three levels: conceptual,
logical, physical. In a dbms, these might roughly be compared to
business entities described in a requirements doc,
Vesa Karvonen wrote:
I think that we're finally getting to the bottom of things. While reading
your reponses something became very clear to me: latent-typing and latent-
types are not a property of languages. Latent-typing, also known as
informal reasoning, is something that all programmers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I very much agree with the observation that every programmer performs
latent typing in his head
Great!
(although Pascal Constanza's seems to have
the opposite opinion).
I'll have to catch up on that.
But I also think that latently typed language is not a
Marshall wrote:
Can you be more explicit about what latent types means?
I'm sorry to say it's not at all natural or intuitive to me.
Are you referring to the types in the programmers head,
or the ones at runtime, or what?
Sorry, that was a huge omission. (What I get for posting at 3:30am.)
Vesa Karvonen wrote:
In comp.lang.functional Anton van Straaten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
This static vs dynamic type thing reminds me of one article written by
Bjarne Stroustrup where he notes that Object-Oriented has become a
synonym for good. More precisely, it seems to me
Rob Thorpe wrote:
So, will y'all just switch from using dynamically typed to latently
typed, and stop talking about any real programs in real programming
languages as being untyped or type-free, unless you really are
talking about situations in which human reasoning doesn't come into
play? I
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
Rob Warnock wrote:
Here's what the Scheme Standard has to say:
http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-4.html
1.1 Semantics
...
Scheme has latent as opposed to manifest types. Types are assoc-
iated with values (also
Marshall wrote:
Joe Marshall wrote:
They *do* have a related meaning. Consider this code fragment:
(car a string)
[...]
Both `static typing' and `dynamic typing' (in the colloquial sense) are
strategies to detect this sort of error.
The thing is though, that putting it that way makes it
19 matches
Mail list logo
