[meta-sig] Re: The Types-SIG is comatose. Let's retire it.
Thu, 2 Dec 1999 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
I'm not sure that I agree the types-sig should stay alive simply because
some traffic is inserted when a threat-of-execution has arisen. The
impetus for the SIG is (IMO) obviously gone, despite some people's
unstated desires to see work done along this path.
I'd recommend closing the SIG and letting this discussion move elsewhere.
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Here's an approach that we didn't try because it is likely to be wildly
> > unpopular:
> Why would it be unpopular?
> > There exists a popular programming language that uses optional type
> > checking and is nearly as dynamic as Python: Visual Basic. The overall
> > type system is weak, (e.g. no concept of common interface) but the
> > optional type checking part seems to work pretty well. We wouldn't have
> > to do "uncertain language research" to rip its behavior (and even some
> > of its syntax) off. It strikes me as a pretty common sense approach.
> I don't know the details, never having studied VB manuals, although I
> once saw the source of a file that described the linkage to a C
> module (pretty ugly but effective and no need for wrappers).
> Do you have the time to describe this in somewhat more detail for us
> lucky folks who haven't had the pleasure to learn VB?
> --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
> Types-SIG mailing list
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/