[Types-sig] Static typing: Towards closure? - parameterization

Guido van Rossum guido@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:47:03 -0500

I believe Josh meant this to go out to the list.

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:36:20 -0500
From:    josh@shock.pobox.com (Josh Marcus)
To:      guido@CNRI.Reston.VA.US (Guido van Rossum)
Subject: Re: [Types-sig] Static typing: Towards closure? - parameterization

> > While ML has some qualities python has no business pursueing (like how
> > it deals with namespaces, currying functions, etc), there is a reason
> > it's commonly used to teach about typed programming, the semantics of
> > it's type checking system are powerful, concise, and accurate when
> > compared to most other languages.  I definitely believe it's worth a
> > look for the semantics of it's type checking, though not for anything
> > else :)
> I have Ullmann's "Elements of ML Programming".  Which chapter should I
> read?

As I just wrote in an accidentally private note, chapter 12 of "Elements"      
 -- or even the first five or six pages of chapter 12 -- is a good
introduction to the ways in which ML's type checking is powerful
and clear.  (My discussions with Scott about his type checking proposal
have turned me into a fan of ML!  Who'd of thunk it?)  It covers
both polymorphic type declarations and constructors, among other
things.  It's worth noting at this point that ML implements enumerations
through the use of datatypes and constructors.  While bringing enumerations
to python is beyond the scope of type checking, this would be an ideal
opportunity to add them, if one was prone to do such a thing.

- --j

------- End of Forwarded Message