🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <459@watcgl.UUCP> kdmoen@watcgl.UUCP (Doug Moen) writes:
>However, there is no reason why a language could not support static
>type checking and dynamic binding.  For example, one could define
>a statically typed variant of Smalltalk in which a 'type' specifies
>the set of messages understood by an object.  We still have dynamic
>binding (and polymorphism), because two objects that accept the same
>message protocol are interchangeable at runtime, even if they have
>different implementations.  But static type checking ensures that all
>'message not understood' errors are detected at compile time.

Some references on systems that implement static type checking with
dynamic binding to implementations:

Andrew Black; Norman Hutchinson; Eric Jul; Henry Levy;
"Object Structure in the Emerald System"
ACM SIGPLAN Notices 21(11), 78-86; November 1986

Craig Schaffert; Topher Cooper; Bruce Bullis; Mike Kilian; Carrie Wilpolt;
"An Introduction to Trellis/Owl";
ACM SIGPLAN Notices 21(11), 9-16; November 1986
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl		716-275-5766	University of Rochester
			crowl@rochester.arpa	Computer Science Department
 ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl	Rochester, New York,  14627