Chris Angelico writes:
> I'm fairly sure most arguments about "readable" or "unreadable" code
> follow the same definitions.
Does it ever. I never thought annotating names one added with one's
initials or copy-pasting code instead of having a boolean expression in
an if statement or keeping old
Random832 writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > The opposite of string typing is weak typing.
>
> Well, I would say *string* typing [as used in, for example, sh and tcl]
> is actually a form of weak typing.
I infer a smile as you write that, but to clarify for others: I made a
typo, and meant to con
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Random832 wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>> The opposite of string typing is weak typing.
>
> Well, I would say *string* typing [as used in, for example, sh and tcl]
> is actually a form of weak typing. But anyway, the other issue is that
> strong typing is meaningle
Ben Finney writes:
> The opposite of string typing is weak typing.
Well, I would say *string* typing [as used in, for example, sh and tcl]
is actually a form of weak typing. But anyway, the other issue is that
strong typing is meaningless. In general it seems like weak typing means
"the existence
