🚀 go-pugleaf

wg@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Grieskamp) writes:
>farrell@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Friendless) writes:
>>jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes:
>>>Despite what some people say, i don't think strong typing is such a good deal
>>>It catches obvious errors, but doesn't do you any good against less obvious
>>>bugs.
>What is strong typing? Is it just the case that every member of a 
>sum-of-products establish some type and all together another type? 
>Does it requires open type implementations or do you introduce 
>abstract sort names for each member of the sum? Is the domain of a 
>constrained object an anonymous one? 

  I didn't have in mind any particular concept of strong typing, other than
the idea that you have to be able to determine at compile-time what type
things are. Sorry, but I'm not a type-theorist. My particular favourite is
Milner polymorphism, because it's easy and it provides exactly the type
information which an implementation needs and can use. That is, you need to
know the information that Milner typing gives you, and you cannot take
advantage of any more. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.


							John