Rob Thorpe wrote: > > But it differs from latently typed languages like python, perl or lisp. > In such a language there is no information about the type the variable > stores. The programmer cannot write code to test it, and so can't > write functions that issue errors if given arguments of the wrong type. > The programmer must use his or her memory to substitute for that > facility. As far as I can see this is a significant distinction and > warrants a further category for latently typed languages.
Take one of these languages. You have a variable that is supposed to store functions from int to int. Can you test that a given function meets this requirement? You see, IMO the difference is marginal. From my point of view, the fact that you can do such tests *in some very trivial cases* in the languages you mention is an artefact, nothing fundamental. - Andreas -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
