Chris F Clark wrote: > Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Unfortunately, I have to again reject this idea. There is no such >>restriction on type theory. Rather, the word type is defined by type >>theorists to mean the things that they talk about. > > Do you reject that there could be something more general than what a > type theorist discusses? Or do you reject calling such things a type? > > Let you write: > >>because we could say that anything that checks types is a type system, >>and then worry about verifying that it's a sound type system without >>worrying about whether it's a subset of the perfect type system. > > I'm particularly interested if something unsound (and perhaps > ambiguous) could be called a type system.
Yes, but not a useful one. The situation is the same as with unsound formal systems; they still satisfy the definition of a formal system. -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list