[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
We're having a discussion with a friend regarding the most accurate way to describe the typing situation in Python. His view is that Python data are typed and variables un-typed, moreover, he proposes that the terms "un-typed" and "uni-typed" are practically equivalent. At first it seemed somewhat reasonable to me, but the more I thought about it, the more my mind rejected both, the equivalence and the phrasing. The idea of uni-typing is that there's a set of types that the runtime supports and expressions can be composed of any members of that set, thus forming a single type, which is that set. This idea seems to describe the situation in a useful (for analysis) and an enlightening way, while the term "un-typed" does not seem to say anything useful. I'm also feeling uneasy about the phrasing: un-typed _variables_. That is, data and _expressions_ have types, but individual variables are just not something you can make a claim about outside of a context of an expression. We'd appreciate very much if the enlightened folks of this list would provide some input on this. -- Siraaj Khandkar .o. o.o ..o o.. .o. ..o .oo o.o .oo ..o ooo .o. .oo oo. ooo
