On 19 Jun 2006 10:19:05 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) wrote:
>If you don't have definitions (stubs or complete) of the functions you >use in your code, you can only run it up to the point where you call >an undefined function. So you can't really do much exploration until >you have some definitions. Well in Lisp that just drops you into the debugger where you can supply the needed return data and continue. I agree that it is not something often needed. >I expect a lot of the exploration you do with incomplete programs >amount to the feedback you get from type inference. The ability to write functions and test them immediately without writing a lot of supporting code is _far_ more useful to me than type inference. I'm not going to weigh in on the static v dynamic argument ... I think both approaches have their place. I am, however, going to ask what information you think type inference can provide that substitutes for algorithm or data structure exploration. George -- for email reply remove "/" from address -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
