On Wednesday 11 March 2009 18:35:46 Cosmin Stejerean wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > Another red herring: you are describing a disadvantage of nominal over > > structural typing. Not dynamic vs static typing. > > You are correct, my apologies. I was trying to show an example of > situations where what I know and what the compiler wants is different, but > as you pointed out my example is only valid in the case of a nominal type > system.
No problem. The most commonly cited examples in academia are the fix point combinator and polymorphically recursive functions, neither of which type directly in the Hindley-Milner type system that today's statically-typed FPLs are almost all based upon. However, not only do both OCaml and Haskell handle those examples fine but the examples themselves are of little practical relevance. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
