[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dynamic vs. static typing
From: "Anton van Straaten" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: dynamic vs. static typing
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:06:02 -0500
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> The Haskell example I referenced includes the enumeration of a number of
> seemingly trivial identity relationships, such as "Monday == Monday", i.e.
> specifying, for the benefit of a type definition, "whether an object is
> identical to itself".
Moreover assignment itself and value passing can be part of its
interface. Values in many languages have different behavior when
passed or assigned depending on type. In C++, class can specify
assignment operator. In Lisps some values are passed by reference and
others by value - and that is really different behavior. Some other
values (not only common ones like numbers) can have single instance
Maybe even some other things like life time of value can be considered
dependent on value type.
All of that applies even to DT.