Marshall wrote: > Chris Smith wrote: >>Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>I think what this highlights is the fact that our existing terminology >>>is not up to the task of representing all the possible design >>>choices we could make. Some parts of dynamic vs. static >>>a mutually exclusive; some parts are orthogonal. >> >>Really? I can see that in a strong enough static type system, many >>dynamic typing features would become unobservable and therefore would be >>pragmatically excluded from any probable implementations... but I don't >>see any other kind of mutual exclusion between the two. > > Well, it strikes me that some of what the dynamic camp likes > is the actual *absence* of declared types, or the necessity > of having them.
So why aren't they happy with something like, say, Alice ML, which is statically typed, but has a "dynamic" type and type inference? I mean this as a serious question. > At the very least, requiring types vs. not requiring > types is mutually exclusive. Right, but it's pretty well established that languages that don't require type *declarations* can still be statically typed. -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
