David Hopwood wrote:
> > But some of the advocates of statically
> > typed languages wish to lump these languages together with assembly
> > language a "untyped" in an attempt to label them as unsafe.
>
> A common term for languages which have defined behaviour at run-time is
> "memory safe". For example, "Smalltalk is untyped and memory safe."
> That's not too objectionable, is it?
I find it too weak, as if to say: "well, ok, it can't actually corrupt memory
as such, but the program logic is still apt go all over the shop"...
-- chris
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
