On 16 Mrz., 19:43, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Am 16.03.2009 um 12:26 schrieb Robert Pfeiffer: > > > Did you mean this: > > >http://wiki.jvmlangsummit.com/pdf/28_Siek_gradual.pdf > > > It was presented at the JVM Summit, so Rich may already have given a > > thought to this. > > Argh.. "Gradual Typing" that was term I was missing. > > Here some more information. > > The Paper (and a unsurprisingly negative discussion) on > LtU:http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1707 > > And the video of the talk from the above > link.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=21835070615692553 > > I don't know, whether this is useful or not, but if we really want > an optional type system, we should investigate the possibilities, > I think.
Oh, that sounds really useful. This is in principle very close to what I was had in mind in the past years. The paper says: “The type system and semantics should place a minimal implementation burden on language implementors.” And that also sounds like a good thing. What I would love to see is an optional system. With such even hardcore fans of dynamic typing should not have any problem with it, if Clojure is going to have one. A thing that should be easy to add is a on/off switch. Maybe a global one, and a file based one. Perhaps this gradual typing even allows a gradual implementation. Would be a nice productivity boost to have the compiler checking parts of our code during some phases of development. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
