🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <STEPHEN.92Apr13035948@estragon.uchicago.edu> stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu (Stephen P Spackman) writes:

   Wait, wait! Are we talking about LEXICAL occurrences of names or about
   INSTANCES? These are profoundly different.

To be honest I'm not sure which is being discussed.  I've a feeling
that some people in the discussion are equating types with
identifiers, whilst I'm trying to relate them to "values" (instances?)


   [parametric polymorphic identity function deleted]

   Is "t" statically typed? Its type is "T" which is itself an argument
   to f.... Statically bound but not lexically bound, I would have said,
   but perhaps that isn't the clearest way of expressing it.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My feelings on the question are summed up by the underlined part :-)


   I would have said it [Smalltalk] was unityped: it has *one* type
   for objects,  which is (formally, internally) a dependent product:

IMHO it has one "static" type, OBJECT, but many "dynamic" types e.g.
integer, string, boolean, set, ... etc.

bevan