🚀 go-pugleaf

    I would really like to refrain from further comments on the
issue of Eiffel type checking for the time being. for several
reasons:

    - My July article explained in detail why the Eiffel type rules
    are what they are, and why we believe they are the right ones.
    Although, as always, I would certainly try to improve that article
    if I were to rewrite it (which I will), I have nothing fundamental
    to add or change to it. 

    - In spite of the above, there was a discussion of this topic
    in the newsgroup comp.software-eng recently (which I assume
    Mr. Gariepy had not seen when he posted his article).
    I posted a fairly long article (<264@eiffel.UUCP>) providing
    further material. See also <259@eiffel.UUCP> and, for other
    people's comments, <Ec.3251@cs.psu.edu>, <259@eiffel.UUCP>,
    <9790@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> and <102100004@p.cs.uiuc.edu>,
    all posted in comp.software-eng.

    - I will feel much more comfortable when our type checker catches
    all the cases it currently misses. (Let me reiterate, however,
    that in disagreement with Mr. Gariepy I do think they are
    artificial, as confirmed by our own experience.)

    - Finally, we are trying to convene a good set of panelists
    so as to have a useful, comprehensive live debate on the topic of
    type checking for object-oriented languages at TOOLS '90 in
    Paris in June.  I hope differing viewpoints can be exposed and
    argued in depth. We should all learn in the process.

-- Bertrand Meyer
bertrand@eiffel.com