Re: Operationalize orthogonality
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 1 Jun 2006 08:13:52 -0700
Message-ID: <1149174832.303518.73920_at_g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Date: 1 Jun 2006 08:13:52 -0700
Message-ID: <1149174832.303518.73920_at_g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Bob Badour wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> >
> > The general principle that I derive from your story is that
> > implicit conversions undermine the value of static type
> > checking.
>
> Which is also the general principle of Tony D's reply to Pickie's post
> about representing booleans as numbers and strings. Is it not?
I guess so. It seemed Tony's example was more about the use of unityped constants to emulate separately typed enumerations, whereas yours was specifically about implicit conversions. But yes, they both illustrate why the same principle.
Marshall Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 17:13:52 CEST