In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Nagle a écrit :
> > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed - static typing is for compilers, not for programmers.
> >
> >
> > Actually, static typing is for detecting errors before the
> > program is run.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ cat toto.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> int main(void)
> {
> char *toto = (char *)42;
> printf("%s", toto);
> return 0;
> }
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ gcc -ototo toto.c
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ ./toto
> Erreur de segmentation
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $
>
> You said ?
A discussion about static typing on comp.lang.python is liable
to be a little tiresome even when it isn't conducted on such a
silly level.
The GvR ideas I've seen on V3 typing show some acquaintance with
type inference etc. as used in modern functional languages.
While C++ or Java may represent static typing to Python users,
I don't think there's much risk that they will have anything to do
with static typing in V3, if it's supported in some way.
Secondly, one can reasonably argue that steel toed boots
prevent injuries to the toe, without having to prove that
they withstand a welding torch, a nuclear blast, etc.
Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
