Op 2005-10-06, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Sure, But allow me this silly analogy. >> >> Going out on a full test-drive will also reveal your tires are flat. >> So if you one has to be dropped, a full test drive or a tire check >> it would certainly be the tired check. But IMO the tire check >> is still usefull. > > But you could write it as test - including not only a look (which > resembles the limited capabilities of typechecking), but testing the air > pressure, looking at the tyre type and see that it won't match the rainy > conditions... > >> Hey, I'm all for testing. I never suggested testing should be dropped >> for declarations > > The testing is IMHO more valuable than typechecking. The latter one > actually _limits_ me. See e.g. the java IO-Api for a very bloated way of > what comes very naturally with python. Duck-typing at it's best.
But typechecking doesn't has to be java like. I can't help but feel that a lot of people have specific typechecking systems in mind and then conclude that the limits of such a symtem are inherent in typechecking itself. IMO a good type system doesn't need to limit python in any way. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
