Chris Smith wrote: > > Basically, I start objecting when someone starts comparing "statically > typed" and "dynamically typed" as if they were both varieties of some > general concept called "typed". They aren't. Furthermore, these two > phrases were invented under the misconception that that are. If you > mean something else by types, such as the idea that a value has a tag > indicating its range of possible values, then I tend to think it would > be less confusing to just say "type" and then clarify the meaning it > comes into doubt, rather than adopting language that implies that those > types are somehow related to types from type theory.
While I am quite sympathetic to this point, I have to say that this horse left the barn quite some time ago. Marshall PS. Hi Chris! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list