🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <21MAR91.23594992@uc780.umd.edu> cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu writes:
> Gack!  I think I know what you're saying.  I think that the types that
> I deal with are much simpler than the types you deal with.  Or maybe I
> should say that each variable has its own unique type?  

I'm not even necessarily talking about any particular language. I'm an
agnostic on the whole issue of which is "better". I use each tool for
what it's good for, subject to the availability of good compilers. But
I do find declarations a useful tool when I'm using a statically typed
language with a sufficiently rich type system (neither C nor Pascal
really qualifies here, for different reasons).

> Generally, each assignment to a variable is unique.  (I try not to
> re-assign, and when I do, I try and make sure re-executing that
> section of code would not cause a problem).  Exception made for loop
> counters, but not for other assignments made within the loop.

This is an unusual coding style, in my experience. Are you actually
limitin assignments, or are you hiding those assignments in call by
reference? Perhaps a code fragment would help.

> >[the only useful comments are]
> >> the ones that identify the purpose of the function, or perhaps the
> >> purpose of a variable.
> >That is, type declarations. Hmmmm.

> Yeah, type declarations.  Neither dynamic type declarations nor static
> type declarations, but descriptive type declarations.  A feature
> supported in every language I've ever heard of (even machine
> language).

But wouldn't it be nice if the language understood those declarations?
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"