On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:39:01 -0400 Terry Reedy email@example.com wrote:
If I were writing a class intended to implement an particular ABC, I would be happy to have an automated check function that might catch errors. 100% testing is hard to achieve.
How would an automatic check function solve anything, if you don't test that the class does what is expected?
Again, this is exactly the argument for compile-time type checking, and it is routinely pointed out that it is mostly useless.
That may be the party line of dynamic-language diehards, but that doesn't make it true. There are plenty of times when compile-time checking can save the day, and typically, the larger a system, the more useful it becomes. Antoine, can you back off your attempts to prove that the proposed feature is useless and instead help designing the details of the feature (or if you can't or don't want to help there, just stay out of the discussion)?