RE: Typing and semantics [dynamic vs. static typing]

["Kevin S. Millikin" <address@hidden>]

> No, wait a minute. I'm not excluding semantics that use type
> information, just those that use the result of the type proof.

But it's not fair to Haskell to not allow it to use the results of type 
inference later on, when an explicitly typed language *is* allowed to 
use the programmer supplied type annotations (i.e., the results of 
manual type inference).

Is the real beef with type inference?  Certainly, type inference is 
hard to understand if the programmer cannot be made to understand the 
type inference algorithm.  Haskell programmers seem to learn to cope. 
 They are using a lazy functional language, after all.  Nothing else 
makes sense anyway!

-- Kevin