"Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are also what I call "packaging" issues, such as
> being able to run partly-wrong programs on purpose so
> that one would have the opportunity to do runtime analysis
> without having to, say, implement parts of some interface
> that one isn't interest
Anton van Straaten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But a program as seen by the programmer has types: the programmer
> performs (static) type inference when reasoning about the program, and
> debugs those inferences when debugging the program, finally ending up
> with a program which has a perfectly
Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Assume a language that
>> a) defines that a program is "type-correct" iff HM inference establishes
>> that there are no type errors
>> b) compiles a type-incorrect program anyway, with an establishes
>> rig
Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've since abandoned any attempt to be picky about use of the word
> "type". That was a mistake on my part. I still think it's legitimate
> to object to statements of the form "statically typed languages X, but
> dynamically typed languages Y", in whi
"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think statements like this are confusing, because there are
>> different interpretations of what a "value" is.
> But I mean the value as the semantics of the program itself sees it.
> Which mostly means the datum in memory.
I don't agree with that.
"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But it only gaurantees this because the variables themselves have a
> type, the values themselves do not.
I think statements like this are confusing, because there are
different interpretations of what a "value" is. I would say that the
integer '4' is
Andreas Rossberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "A language is latently typed if a value has a property - called it's
>> type - attached to it, and given it's type it can only represent values
>> defined by a certain class."
I thought the point was to separate the (bitwise) representation of a
va
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
> But if we can agree to name every function except continuations I'll be
> content
FWIW, I disagree:
A simple example, doubling each entry in a list:
map (*2) xs
vs. let double x = x*2 in map double xs
Here's another example, extracting all l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
>> Any time you want an anonymous function (or class, or type, or number)
>> it would be because that thing is sufficiently small and simple that the
>> best name for it is the code itself.
> In the real world, people don't choose anonymous functions only
