On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:30:01 Cosmin Stejerean wrote: > > Actually it happens a lot in real code and in many non-trivial programs > in > > static typed languages you end up with a proliferation of types that are > > simply there to make the compiler happy. To me it happens very often > where > > I know what I want: to pass an object of type B into a function f that > > expects type A, because I know that B is sufficiently A-like to allow > > function f to work. > > Another red herring: you are describing a disadvantage of nominal over > structural typing. Not dynamic vs static typing. > You are correct, my apologies. I was trying to show an example of situations where what I know and what the compiler wants is different, but as you pointed out my example is only valid in the case of a nominal type system. -- Cosmin Stejerean http://offbytwo.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
