| Markus 2007-08-15, 7:11 pm |
|
> It's a separate discussion whether code like I've written is "useful" or not.
> But some people on this thread have claimed that code which is not "well
> typed" (necessarily) doesn't even have semantics, and that claim is clearly
You still don't understand, that the original request (by P Constanza,
if I'm right) was for a change in the way that _statically typed_
langauges work, because 'even badly typed code has meaning'. The claim
that badly typed code (or at least not statically typable code) has
meaning has been made for __statically typed languages__. Which is
utter nonsense if one knows a bit about the way the semantics in these
languages are defined.
Your attempt to shift the battle field to dynamically typed languages
is futile (and in my view smacks of trolldom). Just try to read back
in which context the orginal claim has been made and, please, stop
distorting what others said.
> silly. It's easy to give semantics to the kind of code I wrote above, and
> many dynamically typed languages -- such as Lisp -- do so.
It's not so easy to do so as extension to a statically typed language
AND keep features like type inference.
- M
|