
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:04:46 pm Masklinn wrote:
On 24 Sep 2009, at 01:40 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The world disagrees with you:
Not really:
It is the opposite of strong typing, and consequently the term weak
typing has as many different meanings as strong typing does
Go to "strong typing" and you have a list of 9 different (and not necessarily compatible) definitions of "strong typing".
How does Wikipedia stating that there are many definitions of weak typing support your assertion that "there is not [sic] definition of weak typing"? I think it is disingenuous of you to delete the text of yours I quoted. The terms weak and strong typing are very common use in the real world. If they don't have a single, formal, precise definition, that's too bad, but it doesn't prevent them from being useful so long as we remember that they are fuzzy terms. The English language is full of words and terms with multiple definitions and fuzzy gradings. We manage to communicate about relative differences in size quite well without a single objective and precise definition of "large", and we can communicate about relative differences in strength of the type system of languages quite well without a single objective and precise definition of type strength. -- Steven D'Aprano