🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <pallas.669923769@red-dwarf>, pallas@eng.sun.com (Joseph Pallas) writes:
> |> 
> |> Sooner or later, opponents of static typing bring out the
> |> heterogeneous collection.  
> |> [stuff deleted]
> |> The problem is, no one has ever come up with a convincing reason why I
> |> should want my type system to handle the heterogeneous collection.
> |> This is because no one has come up with a convincing reason why I
> |> should want to write programs that contain heterogeneous collections.
> |> Needing collections of otherwise-unrelated objects generally signals a
> |> flaw in the design, not a failing of the type system.
> 

There is at least one kind of system which must allow heterogeneous
collections. It is often called Open System. Is these systems the
person who writes the kernel do not know anything about what objects
will be used by the persons who will extend the system.

Another exemple is for debugging, where you might collect any kind
of objects.


-- 
Franck BOISSIERE                        boissier@irisa.irisa.fr
C.C.E.T.T.   B.P. 59                    boissiere@ccett.fr
35512 CESSON SEVIGNE CEDEX  FRANCE