Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 11:38, K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
> "Alaric B. Snell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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*
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit