🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr8.180420.9294@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
   The word `type' means any static attribute which is associated with
   an identifier in such a way that _every_ occurrence of the identifier
   in a given scope has that attribute.

Is this is a JLG definition or do others share this view?  It
certainly doesn't match with what my idea of a "type" is.


   The word `type' has no meaning at all if all attributes are
   dynamically alterable.

I would have thought it did, the "type" is just the "type" at the
particular time you look at it.  I'd consider this "dynamic typing".


   In this case you _may_ decide to apply the word `type' to certain
   properties of _values_, but such a distinction is not useful. 

Hm, I tend to think the same about the definition of "type" given
above.


   You have been juggling semantics rather creatively to claim that
   every assignment actually introduces a new scope.  If this is true,
   then it saps the meaning of the word `scope' to nothing.

Maybe I have it all wrong, but I have no problem with Raul's
definition.  Can't you just imagine a "let" in front of any
"assignment"? i.e.

   A =: B             let A = B
   ...                in ...
   A =: C                let A = C 
                         in ...

and use parentheses to delimit scopes as Raul showed in a previous
message.

Stephen J. Bevan				bevan@cs.man.ac.uk