Op 2005-10-07, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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
But since I have no such type system in mind, such an example is useless. > - 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. The fact that something else uses the same name, for something doesn't mean it has to be implemented the same way. >>>>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." Then argue against my ideas, and not your makings of it. If I just use 'ANY' and you fill that in with C void* like implementation and argue against that, then you are arguing against your own ghosts, but not against what I have in mind. It may very well turn out that my idea is useless, but I will only accept that when someone comes with arguments against my actual idea, and not with arguements against their projection of it. > 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. You have not counterd my idea with criticism. You have decorated my idea with how you think it would be implemented (C void*) and argued against that. I don't need to give an implementation to notice, that you jumped to a particular implementation and basicly just countered that implementation, not the idea in general. > 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. As far as I'm concerned that was just meant as a matter of fact remark, with no snide intentions. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
