David Hopwood wrote: > > Oh, but it *does* make sense to talk about dynamic tagging in a statically > typed language. > > That's part of what makes the term "dynamically typed" harmful: it implies > a dichotomy between "dynamically typed" and "statically typed" languages, > when in fact dynamic tagging and static typing are (mostly) independent > features.
That's really coming home to me in this thread: the terminology is *so* bad. I have noticed this previously in the differences between structural and nominal typing; many typing issues associated with this distinction are falsely labeled as a static-vs-dynamic issues, since so many statically type languages are nominally typed. We need entirely new, finer grained terminology. Marshall -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
