Chris Smith wrote: > Chris Uppal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>I'm unsure whether to consider explicitly stored array lengths, which >>>are present in most statically typed languages, to be part of a "type" >>>in this sense or not. >> >>If I understand your position correctly, wouldn't you be pretty much forced to >>reject the idea of the length of a Java array being part of its type ? > > I've since abandoned any attempt to be picky about use of the word "type".
I think you should stick to your guns on that point. When people talk about "types" being associated with values in a "latently typed" or "dynamically typed" language, they really mean *tag*, not type. It is remarkable how much of the fuzzy thinking that often occurs in the discussion of type systems can be dispelled by insistence on this point (although much of the benefit can be obtained just by using this terminology in your own mind and translating what other people are saying to it). It's a good example of the weak Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I think. -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
