Joe Marshall wrote:
> Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> >
> > Which is why this actually is a very bad example to chose for dynamic
> > typing advocacy... ;-)
>
> Actually, this seems a *good* example. The problem seems to be that
> you end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater: your static type
>
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
>~/> ocaml -rectypes
> Objective Caml version 3.08.3
>
># let rec blackhole x = blackhole;;
>val blackhole : 'b -> 'a as 'a =
>
> The problem is, though, that almost everything can be typed once you
> have unrestricted recursive types (e.g. missing a
David Hopwood wrote:
>>
>>>(defun blackhole (argument)
>>> (declare (ignore argument))
>>> #'blackhole)
> I believe this example requires recursive types. It can also be expressed
> in a gradual typing system, but possibly only using an unknown ('?') type.
>
> ISTR that O'Caml at one point (befor
David Hopwood wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>>(defun blackhole (argument)
>> (declare (ignore argument))
>> #'blackhole)
>
> This is typeable in any system with universally quantified types (including
> most practical systems with parametric polymorphism); it has type
> "forall a . a -> #'blac
David Hopwood wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>>David Hopwood wrote:
>>>Marshall wrote:
>>>
The real question is, are there some programs that we
can't write *at all* in a statically typed language, because
they'll *never* be typable?
>>>
>>>In a statically typed language that has a "dynamic"
