Rob Thorpe wrote: > David Hopwood wrote: > > The term "dynamically typed" is well used and understood. The term > untyped is generally associated with languages that as you put it "have > no memory safety", it is a pejorative term. "Latently typed" is not > well used unfortunately, but more descriptive. > > Most of the arguments above describe a static type system then follow > by saying that this is what "type system" should mean, and finishing by > saying everything else should be considered untyped. This seems to me > to be an effort to associate dynamically typed languages with this > perjorative term.
I can believe that someone, somewhere out there might have done this, but I can't recall ever having seen it. In any event, the standard term for memory safety is "safety", not "untyped." Further, anyone who was interested in actually understanding the issues woudn't be doing what you describe. And if you did find someone who was actively doing this I would say "never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." Marshall -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
