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

Re: the forward method [dynamic vs. static typing]

On 2003-11-20T18:04:20-0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
> Yes, my example isn't what I was going for. Let's use a simpler example.
> Let's say we have a system like Smalltalk where the base Object 
> supports a method like:
> - forward:methodName args:arguments
> And the way this works is that when an object is sent a message it 
> doesn't respond to, it invokes this method with the appropriate 
> arguments.
> Now, you'll see we have a situation where *all* objects can except 
> *all* messages. And it can only be known at runtime if they want to 
> deal with them or not.
> How does static typing deal with this? It seems all the types in the 
> system would have to be declared to respond to all methods, in which 
> case, they tell us nothing and there is no such thing as a compile time 
> type error.

Indeed, in a system like Smalltalk, there is no such thing as a compile
time type error.


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