[Types-sig] RFC 0.1
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:13:35 -0800
John Ehresman wrote:
> I think it might be possible to do both run-time and compile-time
> checking by defining the system in terms of what happens at run time, but
> allowing compile time optimizations to be made.
We are almost on the same track, but are not completely in sync. Static
type checking isn't just an optimization. It's also a way of making more
robust code. We use the "type-safe" declaration to say that the
function/class/module should never throw a TypeError (thought it might
propagate one from un-typesafe code). Note that even in C++ and Java it
is possible for type-safe code to be required to propagate those
language's equivalent of a type error.
I'm not happy with a "lint-like-tool". I want static type checking to be
formally defined in the language definition as it is in other languages.
If you want it, you should be able to get it, reliably and at compile
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
Three things to be wary of: A new kid in his prime
A man who knows the answers, and code that runs first time