"Jeff M." writes:
> On Jun 9, 9:08 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> >
>> > Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jon, I do concurrent programming all the time, as do most of my peers.
>> >> Way down on the list of why we do it is the reduction of latency.
>>
>> > What is higher on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Matthias, thanks for the reference, but I dont have access to an
> engineering library. I would appreciate, if you have access to paper/
> scanner or electronic copy to help many of us out, you are
> not just helping me but many will thank you.
Given that you seem to b
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:15:49 +, gnuist006 wrote:
>
>> Again I am depressed to encounter a fundamentally new concept that I
>> was all along unheard of. Its not even in paul graham's book where i
>> learnt part of Lisp. Its in Marc Feeley's video.
>>
>> Can an
Oliver Bandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Oliver Bandel wrote:
>>>
こんいちわ Xah-Lee san ;-)
>>>
>>>Uhm, I'd guess that Xah is Chinese. Be careful
>>>with such things in real life; Koreans might
>>>beat you up for this. Stay alive!
>> And the Japanese might beat him up, too. For butchering the
"Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume wrote:
>>
>> How does this "create" such a problem? The problem is there in either
>> approach. In fact, I believe that the best chance we have of
>> addressing the problem is by
Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And I am convinced that updating a running system in the style of,
>> e.g., Erlang, can be statically typed.
>
> Maybe. The interesting question then is whether you can express the
> kinds of dynamic updates that are relevant in practice. Because a
>
Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether you consider something you cannot do with statically typed
> languages a bad idea or not is irrelevant. You were asking for things
> that you cannot do with statically typed languages.
The whole point of static type systems is to make sure tha
Tin Gherdanarra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oliver Bandel wrote:
>> こんいちわ Xah-Lee san ;-)
>
> Uhm, I'd guess that Xah is Chinese. Be careful
> with such things in real life; Koreans might
> beat you up for this. Stay alive!
And the Japanese might beat him up, too. For butchering their
language
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume wrote:
>> I agree with Bob Harper about safety being language-specific and all
>> that. But, with all due respect, I think his characterization of C is
>> not accurate.
> [...]
>> AFAIC, C is C-u
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> | think that it is too relevant for the discussion at hand. Moreover,
> | Harper talks about a relative concept of "C-safety".
>
> Then, I believe you missed the entire point.
>
>First point: "safety" is a *per-langua
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> Vesa Karvonen wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> An example of a form of informal reasoning that (practically) every
>>> programmer does daily is termination analysis. There are type systems
>>> that guarantee termination, but I think tha
Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume wrote:
>> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> Vesa Karvonen wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> An example of a form of
Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> Vesa Karvonen wrote:
>> ...
>>> An example of a form of informal reasoning that (practically) every
>>> programmer does daily is termination analysis. There are type systems
>>> that guarantee termination, but I think that
Pascal Bourguignon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Pascal Bourguignon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Moreover, a good proportion of the program and a good number of
>>> algorithms don't ev
Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Smith wrote:
>
>> While this effort to salvage the term "type error" in dynamic
>> languages is interesting, I fear it will fail. Either we'll all
>> have to admit that "type" in the dynamic sense is a psychological
>> concept with no precise te
Pascal Bourguignon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Moreover, a good proportion of the program and a good number of
> algorithms don't even need to know the type of the objects they
> manipulate.
>
> For example, sort doesn't need to know what type the objects it sorts
> are. It only needs to be giv
Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ ... ] As far as I know, LOTOS is the only
> language that *actually* uses abstract data types - you have to use
> the equivalent of #include to bring in the integers, for
> example. Everything else uses informal rules to say how types work.
There are *to
"Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
>>
>> That's not true. ML has variables in the mathematical sense of
>> variables -- symbols that can be associated with different values at
>> different times. What it doesn't have is mutable variables (though it
>> can get
"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> > No it doesn't. Casting reinterprets a value of one type as a value of
>> >> > another type.
>> >> > There is a difference. If I cast an unsigned integer 20 to a
>> >> > signed integer in C on the machine I'm using then the result I will get
Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume schrieb:
>> Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Matthias Blume schrieb:
>>>> Perhaps better: A language is statically typed if its definition
>>>> includes
"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume wrote:
>> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I think we're discussing this at cross-purposes. In a language like C
>> > or another statically typed lan
Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume schrieb:
>> Perhaps better: A language is statically typed if its definition
>> includes (or ever better: is based on) a static type system, i.e., a
>> static semantics with typing judgments derivable
"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we're discussing this at cross-purposes. In a language like C
> or another statically typed language there is no information passed
> with values indicating their type.
You seem to be confusing "does not have a type" with "no type
information is
David Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume wrote:
>> David Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>>>> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>>>>>>> No, that isn't what I said. What I said was:
>
"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>No, that isn't what I said. What I said was:
>> >>>"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 value
David Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> No, that isn't what I said. What I said was:
> "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
Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - In a dynamically typed language, you can run programs successfully
> that are not acceptable by static type systems.
This statement is false.
For every program that can run successfully to completion there exists
a static type system which accept
Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume wrote:
>> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I don't think dynamic typing is that nebulous. I remember this being
>>> discussed elsewhere some time ago, I'l
"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think dynamic typing is that nebulous. I remember this being
> discussed elsewhere some time ago, I'll post the same reply I did then
> ..
>
>
> A language is statically typed if a variable has a property - called
> it's type - attached to it, an
George Neuner writes:
> I am, however, going to ask what
> information you think type inference can provide that substitutes for
> algorithm or data structure exploration.
Nobody wants to do such a substitution, of course. In /my/
experience, however, I find that doing algorithm and data struc
Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Blume wrote:
>> Very good statically typed versions of printf exist. See, e.g.,
>> Danvy's unparsing combinators.
>
> That seems to ignore the fact that the pattern is a string, which
> means that printf's
Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> Give a heterogenous list that would to too awkward to live in a
>> statically-typed language.
>
> Printf()?
Very good statically typed versions of printf exist. See, e.g.,
Danvy's unparsing combinators.
--
http://mail.python.o
32 matches
Mail list logo
