On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Stevan Little
stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com wrote:
I was not talking here about variables (where the 'statically typed'
term could be applied) I was talking about values.
Okay, I am kind of confused then.
If foo is a value whose type is a string, then
John Napiorkowski wrote:
Just curious, how would you feel about an implimentation of dependent types
where the functional element was predefined and more explicit, such as (syntax
hypothetical and only partly implemented...)
snip
I am fine with one being able to create, change, and delete
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
John Napiorkowski wrote:
Just curious, how would you feel about an implimentation of dependent
types where the functional element was predefined and more explicit, such as
(syntax hypothetical and only partly
It seems that in the Moose terminology a Type is just a constraint
with a name. This is different from other languages where the type of
a value does not change in time or in relation to the whole system.
You can copy the value and be sure that the copy has the same type you
can wait and check
Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
It seems that in the Moose terminology a Type is just a constraint
with a name. This is different from other languages where the type of
a value does not change in time or in relation to the whole system.
You can copy the value and be sure that the copy has the same
First of all: OK - I understand that this was the official
interpretation.This is enough for me for continuing my work.
But see below for some more 'philosophical' notes.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Stevan Little
stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:48 AM,
On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
First of all: OK - I understand that this was the official
interpretation.This is enough for me for continuing my work.
But see below for some more 'philosophical' notes.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Stevan Little
Ah yes, okay that makes much more sense when put in the context of sets.
Thanks Darren
- Stevan
On Apr 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Stevan Little wrote:
On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
2. Every type is a subtype of itself
I don't understand that
