Anton van Straaten wrote:
> In that case, you could say that the conceptual type is different than
> the inferred static type. But most of the time, the human is reasoning
> about pretty much the same types as the static types that Haskell
> infers. Things would get a bit confusing otherwise.
Or any mechanised or formalised type system, for any language. If a system
doesn't match pretty closely with at least part of the latent type systems (in
your sense) used by the programmers, then that type system is useless.
(I gather that it took, or maybe is still taking, theorists a while to get to
grips with the infromal type logics which were obvious to working OO
programmers.)
-- chris
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
