[Types-sig] The Types-SIG is comatose. Let's retire it.
Guido van Rossum
Thu, 02 Dec 1999 17:51:03 -0500
> Here's an approach that we didn't try because it is likely to be wildly
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/)