[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: dynamic vs. static typing

On 2003-11-20T16:42:04-0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
> I don't find that an acceptable solution as it would be inconvenient in 
> the extreme to have to implement a respondsToX for every possible X. If 
> you're saying the existence of a generic respondsTo: method doesn't 
> work in with ST, then I 'd say that's an example of how DT is more 
> flexible and powerful.

I didn't mean to imply that you actually need to implement a respondsToX
method for every possible method X; I was just trying to simplify the
exposition (and apparently failing).  I wouldn't even know how to
formally define what "a generic respondsTo: method" and "doesn't work in
with ST" mean, let alone prove a claim involving them.  Regardless, I
don't see any obvious obstacle in implementing respondsToX (for all X at
once) on top of a statically typed encoding of object orientation.

Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
"vi has two modes: one where it beeps and one where it doesn't"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature