On Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:30:01 Cosmin Stejerean wrote: > Actually it happens a lot in real code and in many non-trivial programs in > static typed languages you end up with a proliferation of types that are > simply there to make the compiler happy. To me it happens very often where > I know what I want: to pass an object of type B into a function f that > expects type A, because I know that B is sufficiently A-like to allow > function f to work.
Another red herring: you are describing a disadvantage of nominal over structural typing. Not dynamic vs static typing. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
