Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [A type system is a] tractable syntactic method for proving the > > absence of certain program behaviors by classifying phrases > > according to the kinds of values they compute. (Pierce 2002)." > > Is this supposed to contradict my assertion that *static* typing is > for compilers ?
Yes, the main benefit these days is to prove the absence of certain types of bugs in the program. The article "What To Know Before Debating Type Systems" is pretty informative (though it doesn't go as far as to call C/C++ untyped): http://cdsmith.twu.net/types.html > > C and C++ are basically untyped languages. > > Hem... This assertion is at least debatable. Care to post this on > c.l.c or c.l.c++, so we get some feedback ? I wouldn't consider the aficionados of those dinosaur languages to be authorities on such a question. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
