🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15195@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:

|> [...]                 What JLG describes is usually refered to
|> as a "static property of an identifier".  The word "type" has several
|> completely different definitions, but none that I know of refer to
|> static properties in general.  Furthermore, it is only in low-level
|> languages that type is an attribute of identifiers at all.  In
|> high-level languages type is an attribute of a value.


It is absolutely false and incorrect that my definition has no application
to high-level languages.  In fact, I got this definition from the person
who wrote the abstract semantics definition for Haskell.  It was the
fact that he stated this particular insight into type (which I agreed
with) when we disagreed on so much else that particularly impressed it
into my mind.  His specific statement was, however, that the distinction
between `type' and `value' is meaningless in languages in which neither 
is static.  It was my extension of this reasoning to use this criterion 
as the definition of `type' as opposed to `value'.

J. Giles