Summary: strong/weak typing and pointers

[Mike Meyer]

Steven Bethard <steven.bethard at gmail.com> writes:

> JCM <joshway_without_spam <at> myway.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Definition 1 is the definition most commonly used in Programming
>> > Languages literature....  However, for
>> > all intents and purposes, it is only applicable to statically typed
>> > languages; no one on the list could come up with a dyamically typed
>> > language that allowed bit-reinterpretation.
>> 
>> Assembly language.  The types of values are implied by what
>> instructions you use.
>
> I'm sure some people would argue that assembly language is untyped (not
> statically or dynamically typed) and that the operations are defined on bits,
> but this is definitely the best example I've seen.  Thanks!

The previously mentioned BCPL has the exact same property. For that
matter, early versions of C used to allow it to a large degree. I've
actually compiled programs written as "char *main = { ... }".

To me, a dynamically typed language is one where objects - rather than
variables - have a type attached.

          <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.