## Clear Definition of Types

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:46:43 -0300 (CLST)

The clearest definition of types I've seen is in this thread -
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/412  Unfortunately, I can't find
a way to link to single comments, but look for the title "Only 20 years?
;)", author Anton van Straaten.

It is the first time I, at least, have seen a reasonable argument for
calling "dynamically typed" languages "untyped" (but then I haven't read
Cardelli or, at least, I haven't understood/remembered what I've read).

(And most of cdiggins's reply is also correct, as far as I can tell, and
also consistent with the comment they are replying to: there is a
connection (and they don't see it); it is not necessary;  terms *are*
"values and expressions"; Cardelli's definition is incomplete; the
reference to "lower bound" seems to be a a confusion between the extent of
a set and a numeric value)

Andrew

--
__ _ __ ___  ___| |_____   work web site: http://www.ctio.noao.edu/~andrew
/ _ / _/ _ \/ _ \ / / -_)  personal web site: http://www.acooke.org
\__,_\__\___/\___/_\_\___|  list: http://www.acooke.org/andrew/compute.html

_______________________________________________
compute mailing list
compute@...
https://200.30.199.101/mailman/listinfo/compute