Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Anton van Straaten schrieb:
>
>> Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> Can you be more explicit about what "latent types" means?
>>
>>
>> Sorry, that was a huge omission. (What I get for posting at 3:30am.)
>>
>> Th
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:11:22 +0200, Anton van Straaten
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
>>> \sarcasm One step further, and somebody starts calling C a "latently
>>> memory-safe language"
Chris Smith wrote:
> What makes static type systems interesting is not the fact that these
> logical processes of reasoning exist; it is the fact that they are
> formalized with definite axioms and rules of inference, performed
> entirely on the program before execution, and designed to be entir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>In this context, the term "latently-typed language" refers to the
>>>language that a programmer experiences, not to the subset of that
>>>language which is all that we're typically able to formally define.
>
>
> That language is not a subset, if at all, it's the other
Marshall wrote:
> Chris F Clark wrote:
>
>>I'm particularly interested if something unsound (and perhaps
>>ambiguous) could be called a type system. I definitely consider such
>>things type systems.
>
>
> I don't understand. You are saying you prefer to investigate the
> unsound over the sound?
David Hopwood wrote:
> But since the relevant feature that the languages in question possess is
> dynamic tagging, it is more precise and accurate to use that term to
> describe them.
So you're proposing to call them dynamically-tagged languages?
> Also, dynamic tagging is only a minor help in th
Marshall wrote:
> Anton van Straaten wrote:
>
>>But beyond that, there's an issue here about the definition of "the
>>language". When programming in a latently-typed language, a lot of
>>action goes on outside the language - reasoning about static propert
David Hopwood wrote:
> Anton van Straaten wrote:
...
>>When you get to more complex cases, though, most type inferencers for
>>Scheme assign traditional static-style types to terms. If you think
>>about this in conjunction with the term "latent types", it's
Chris Smith wrote:
> Dr.Ruud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>>The 'dynamic type' is just another type.
>
>
> That's essentially equivalent to giving up. I doubt many people would
> be happy with the conclusion that dynamically typed languages are typed,
> but have only one type which is approp
David Hopwood wrote:
> I can accept that dynamic tagging provides some support for latent typing
> performed "in the programmer's head". But that still does not mean that
> dynamic tagging is the same thing as latent typing
No, I'm not saying it is, although I am saying that the former supports
t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I very much agree with the observation that every programmer performs
> "latent typing" in his head
Great!
> (although Pascal Constanza's seems to have
> the opposite opinion).
I'll have to catch up on that.
> But I also think that "latently typed language" is not a
Vesa Karvonen wrote:
> I think that we're finally getting to the bottom of things. While reading
> your reponses something became very clear to me: latent-typing and latent-
> types are not a property of languages. Latent-typing, also known as
> informal reasoning, is something that all programme
Marshall wrote:
>>The short answer is that I'm most directly referring to "the types in
>>the programmer's head".
>
>
> In the database theory world, we speak of three levels: conceptual,
> logical, physical. In a dbms, these might roughly be compared to
> business entities described in a require
Chris Smith wrote:
> I don't recall who said what at this
> point, but earlier today someone else posted -- in this same thread --
> the idea that static type "advocates" want to classify some languages as
> untyped in order to put them in the same category as assembly language
> programming.
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> Rob Warnock wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's what the Scheme Standard has to say:
>>
>> http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-4.html
>> 1.1 Semantics
>> ...
>> Scheme has latent as opposed to manifest types. Types are assoc-
>> iated wit
Rob Thorpe wrote:
>>So, will y'all just switch from using "dynamically typed" to "latently
>>typed", and stop talking about any real programs in real programming
>>languages as being "untyped" or "type-free", unless you really are
>>talking about situations in which human reasoning doesn't come int
Vesa Karvonen wrote:
> In comp.lang.functional Anton van Straaten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> This static vs dynamic type thing reminds me of one article written by
> Bjarne Stroustrup where he notes that "Object-Oriented" has become a
> synonym for &q
Marshall wrote:
> Can you be more explicit about what "latent types" means?
> I'm sorry to say it's not at all natural or intuitive to me.
> Are you referring to the types in the programmers head,
> or the ones at runtime, or what?
Sorry, that was a huge omission. (What I get for posting at 3:30a
Marshall wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>>They *do* have a related meaning. Consider this code fragment:
>>(car "a string")
>>[...]
>>Both `static typing' and `dynamic typing' (in the colloquial sense) are
>>strategies to detect this sort of error.
>
>
> The thing is though, that putting it tha
19 matches
Mail list logo
