"no variable or argument declarations are necessary."
apardon at forel.vub.ac.be
Thu Oct 6 13:18:43 CEST 2005
Op 2005-10-06, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <deets at nospam.web.de>:
>> Sure, But allow me this silly analogy.
>> Going out on a full test-drive will also reveal your tires are flat.
>> So if you one has to be dropped, a full test drive or a tire check
>> it would certainly be the tired check. But IMO the tire check
>> is still usefull.
> But you could write it as test - including not only a look (which
> resembles the limited capabilities of typechecking), but testing the air
> pressure, looking at the tyre type and see that it won't match the rainy
>> Hey, I'm all for testing. I never suggested testing should be dropped
>> for declarations
> The testing is IMHO more valuable than typechecking. The latter one
> actually _limits_ me. See e.g. the java IO-Api for a very bloated way of
> what comes very naturally with python. Duck-typing at it's best.
But typechecking doesn't has to be java like.
I can't help but feel that a lot of people have specific typechecking
systems in mind and then conclude that the limits of such a symtem
are inherent in typechecking itself.
IMO a good type system doesn't need to limit python in any way.
More information about the Python-list