Chris Smith wrote: > > Knowing that it'll cause a lot of strenuous objection, I'll nevertheless > interject my plea not to abuse the word "type" with a phrase like > "dynamically typed".
Allow me to strenuously object. The static typing community has its own set of terminology and that's fine. However, we Lisp hackers are not used to this terminology. It confuses us. *We* know what we mean by `dynamically typed', and we suspect *you* do, too. > This cleaner terminology eliminates a lot of confusion. Hah! Look at the archives. > This isn't just a matter of preference in terminology. No? > If types DON'T mean a compile-time method for proving the > absence of certain program behaviors, then they don't mean anything at > all. Nonsense. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
