> Why do you call this a JAVA Object or C void*? Why don't you call > it a PYTHON object. It is this kind of reaction that IMO tells most > opponents can't think outside the typesystems they have already > seen and project the problems with those type systems on what > would happen with python should it acquire a type system.
Well, because maybe I wanted you to give you an example of languages that are statically typed and have such an any construct - that, by the way, is not a piece of inguine imagination of yours, but has been thought of before, e.g. CORBA (and called there any, too)? It makes no sense putting python into that context - as it is _not_ statically typed. Which you should know, after discussing this very subject way too long. >>>Would my suggestion be classified as a statically typed world? >> >>See above. > > > Your answer tells more about you then about my suggestion. Your answer tells us something too: Just because you don't know anything about typechecking does not mean that you are in the position to make assumptions on "how things could work if the people who know stuff wouldn't be so stupid". That's like saying "cars can't fly because the stupid engineers lack my sense of imagination." Just blathering about the possibility of some super-duper-typechecker and countering criticism or being told about problems in that domain by making bold statements that this sure could work - provide us with an implementation. Or maybe - just maybe - you could sit back and think about the fact that lots of people who are way cleverer than you and me have been working on this subject, and so far haven't found a way. Which doesn't necessarily mean that there is no way - but certainly its hard, theory-laden work and won't emerge in a NG discussion by some snide remarks of either you or anybody else. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
