Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:09:40 +0000 (UTC), Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> declaimed the following: > > >Or more realistically, suppose you want your type system to ensure > >that you don't lay off the wrong workers: > > > >"employee records where the length of employment is greater than six > >months but less than five years, AND the salary is greater than > >$100,000 or less than $40,000, AND the average number of paid sick > >days taken per year over the last three years is less than five, AND > >the number of reprimands is zero in the last year and less than two > >in the last five years, AND the position in the last two stack > >rankings was in the top fifty percent" > > > That's not a data type -- that's an SQL query...
If that isn't part of the definition of the data type, then *the type checker is not going to help* to determine whether the code lays off the wrong workers. > The data type is still "employee" I think you're agreeing with Steven. Static data types are not relevant for finding most of the bugs a program can have. -- \ “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is | `\ able to think things out for himself, without regard to the | _o__) prevailing superstitions and taboos.” —Henry L. Mencken | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
