In comp.lang.functional Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Even ML and Pascal have ways to circumvent the type system, [...]
Show me a Standard ML program that circumvents the type system.
-Vesa Karvonen
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
27;m not aware of such
a language). It should also be clear that termination analysis need not
be done informally. Given a program, it may be possible to formally prove
that it terminates.
I'm now more convinced than ever that "(latently|dynamically)-typed
language" is an ox
7;t know when I last worked with a typed
> language that does *not* have this ability... (which is slightly
> different from ADTs, btw)
Would Java count?
-Vesa Karvonen
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
quite a misleading term, unless you're talking
> about something like the untyped lambda calculus. That, I will agree,
> can reasonably be called untyped.
Untyped is not misleading. "Typed" is not a synonym for "safe" or
"having well-defined semantics".
> So, will y'all just switch from using "dynamically typed" to "latently
> typed"
I won't (use "latently typed"). At least not without further
qualification.
-Vesa Karvonen
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
e widely used terminology (statically /
dynamically typed, weakly / strongly typed) is extremely confusing to
beginners and even to many with considerable practical experience.
-Vesa Karvonen
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
