Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Matthias Blume]

Joe Marshall <jrm at ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> >
> > Nitpick: Neither syntactic nor statically checked type errors make
> > programs fail. Instead, their presence simply implies the absence of a
> > program.  No program, no program failing...
> 
> Nitpick:  You are defining as a program that which passes a static type
> checker.

Yes, that's how it is usually done with statically typed languages.

> What would you like to call those constructs that make sense
> to a human and would run correctly despite failing a static type
> check?

I don't know.  What would you *like* to call them?  (They might be
called "programs" -- just programs in another language.)

> These are the ones that are interesting to debate.

Right, I am not disputing this.  (I was simply nitpicking on
terminology.)

Matthias