Summary: strong/weak typing and pointers
jeff at ccvcorp.com
Thu Nov 11 21:02:19 CET 2004
Carl Banks wrote:
>Jeff Shannon <jeff at ccvcorp.com> wrote in message news:<10p52ccen1ql956 at corp.supernews.com>...
>>On the other hand, I personally think that "rigid/fluid" make a better
>>metaphor specifically *because* they are not tied so much to physical
>Just to nitpick: something with a vague meaning really isn't a
>metaphor so much as a literal description in a different sense of the
From www.m-w.com, "metaphor" is:
*1* *:* a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting
one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a
likeness or analogy between them (as in /drowning in money/); /broadly/
*:* figurative language -- compare SIMILE
Please note that the use of the phrase "rigid guidelines" is indeed
figurative language. One is figuratively likening the strict adherence
to a set of rules to the physical property of inflexibility.
I also disagree with your assertion that rigid has a vague meaning. It
has a *very* specific meaning, and that meaning is "lacking flexibility"
(again from www.m-w.com -- "*1 a* *:* deficient in or devoid of
flexibility"). And for the record, "solid" has more alternative
definitions in said dictionary than "rigid" does.
>If you don't like how the word solid is tied to material properties,
>then it seems to me that your real problem with it is that you just
>don't like metaphors. Personally, to me, it doesn't matter too much.
>I am equally comfortable with either metaphorical or literal
On the contrary, I'm quite comfortable with metaphor. However, I
completely disagree with your assertion that "rigid rules" is not a
metaphorical usage of the word "rigid". It is an entirely standard and
commonplace usage, yes, but that does not make it non-metaphorical.
Everyday language can be (and often is) figurative, too.
>If you paid attention
>in your study of grammar, [...]
Please don't assume that someone who disagrees with you is either
uneducated or stupid. It's rather insulting and wholly inappropriate.
>OTOH, solid has a specific (literal) meaning that is very analogous to
>its proposed use (hence its suitability as a metaphor). Thus it
>qualifies as a name much better than rigid does.
On the other hand, I could posit that "solid typing" could be seen as
implying that objects are opaque black boxes, and thus that it's related
more to data-hiding than to lack of type coercions.
I'm not convinced that the physical property of solidity is a more
compelling metaphor, and is less prone to alternative interpretations,
than the physical property of rigidity. Indeed, after looking at the
dictionary definitions of both words, I find the case for "solid" to be
even *more* vague. The first given definition of "rigid" as "lacking
flexibility" leads one immediately to the idea that is being discussed
here. "Solid", on the other hand, has a first definition of "being
without an internal cavity" -- how does *that* relate to types? And
your attempts to simply repeat your assertions while insulting me don't
make your argument any more convincing.
More information about the Python-list