Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid> writes: > > In my limited experience with > > Haskell (statically typed but very high level), > > "dynamic" and "static" were not meant to concern typing here (or at > least not only typing).
I'm not sure what you mean by those terms then. > Haskell and MLs are indeed statically typed, but with a powerfull type > inference system, which gives great support for genericity > <ot>(hmmm... is that the appropriate word ?)</ot> I think you mean "polymorphism"; genericity in functional programming usually means compile time reflection about types. (It means something different in Java or Ada). > Now these are functional languages, so the notion of "access > restriction" is just moot in this context !-) I'm not sure what you mean by that; Haskell certainly supports access restrictions, through its type and module systems. > Ok, I should probably have made clear I was thinking of a hi-level > dynamic _imperative_ language vs a low-level static _imperative_ > language. FP is quite another world. I'd say that Python's FP characteristics are an important part of its expressiveness. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
