Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume schrieb:
>> Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Matthias Blume schrieb:
>>>> Perhaps better: A language is statically typed if its definition
>>>> includes (or ever better: is based on) a static type system, i.e., a
>>>> static semantics with typing judgments derivable by typing rules.
>>>> Usually typing judgmets associate program phrases ("expressions") with
>>>> types given a typing environment.
>>> This is defining a single term ("statically typed") using three
>>> undefined terms ("typing judgements", "typing rules", "typing
>>> environment").
>> This was not meant to be a rigorous definition.
>
> Rigorous or not, introducing additional undefined terms doesn't help
> with explaining a term.
I think you missed my point. My point was that a language is
statically typed IF IT IS DEFINED THAT WAY, i.e., if it has a static
type system that is PART OF THE LANGUAGE DEFINITION. The details are
up to each individual definition.
>> Also, I'm not going to repeat the textbook definitions for those
>> three standard terms here.
>
> These terms certainly aren't standard for Perl, Python, Java, or Lisp,
Indeed. That's because these languages are not statically typed.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
