Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 11:38, K. Ari Krupnikov wrote: > "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...> writes: > > 3) Static typing does not have to mean declaring the type of every single > > declaration. Type inferencing systems are statically typed, but declaring > > the types is optional; eg, Haskell and ML. > > Or PL/I that Sean mentioned. I seem to remember a variable was assumed > to be a double if its name started with 'n' and other types for other > initials. So when you made a typo, nubmer_of_things was was not > reported as an error but rather contained garbage, and possibly of a > different type than what you expected. But of course it all worked > through autoconversions, until you suddenly got an underflow on what > you thought was an integer. Ugh! That sounds broken. However, if you're using a naming convention to signal types to the compiler, that's still static typing... Reminds me of BASIC; A$, A%, and A were (in many dialects) string, integer, and floating point variables respectively. And ISTR something about A# being a double precision float? *hazy yet fond recollections of a distant youth* > Ari. ABS -- A city is like a large, complex, rabbit - ARP
|
