Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint
find at my.address.elsewhere
Mon Oct 27 17:30:39 CET 2003
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
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
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
More information about the Python-list