> Chris Smith wrote: >>I suspect you'll see the Smalltalk version of the objections raised in >>response to my post earlier. In other words, whatever terminology you >>think is consistent, you'll probably have a tough time convincing >>Smalltalkers to stop saying "type" if they did before. If you exclude >>"message not understood" as a type error, then I think you're excluding >>type errors from Smalltalk entirely, which contradicts the psychological >>understanding again. > Chris Uppal wrote:
> > Taking Smalltalk /specifically/, there is a definite sense in which it is > typeless -- or trivially typed -- in that in that language there are no[*] > operations which are forbidden[**], Come one Chris U. One has to distinguish an attempt to invoke an operation with it being carried out. There is nothing in Smalltalk to stop one attempting to invoke any "operation" on any object. But one can only actually carry-out operations on objects that implement them. So, apart from the argument about inadvertent operation name overloading (which is important, but avoidable), Smalltalk is in fact strongly-typed, but not statically strongly-typed. -- _______________,,,^..^,,,____________________________ Eliot Miranda Smalltalk - Scene not herd -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
