🚀 go-pugleaf

In <158@m10ux.UUCP>, mnc@m10ux.UUCP (MHx7002 ) writes:
> Using the above definitions, it is clear that a language cannot be
> dynamically bound and staticly typed, unless you make the bizarre
> requirement a la FORTRAN that every variable named x must have the
> same type, even if they are otherwise completely unrelated.
> Otherwise, it is not computable whether a reference to variable x is
> referring to the x that was defined as an integer or the x that was
> defined somewhere else as a character string.

Pardon my obtusity, but I still don't see it.  Why can't you have a
language that is (by your definitions) statically typed, so you know
that this use of X is an integer, but dynamically bound, so you don't
know whether it refers to the same place as that other use of X (also
known to be an integer).  If you see a string use of X you of course
know they're different, but that doesn't mean that aliasing among the
integer uses is known.  Not that I know of any such language...
-- 
David Eppstein, eppstein@cs.columbia.edu, Columbia U. Computer Science Dept.