Re: more closed-world chatter

"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178391422.291226.290880_at_l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 8:50 am, Jon Heggland <jon.heggl..._at_idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >
> > > when it comes to the advantage of sub-typing in dealing with
> > > my question.
> >
> > I don't know about "advantage"; I just don't see how you can avoid it.
>
> It's easy to avoid: just don't put subtying in the language design.
>
> Much of the talk in language design in the last ten years or more
> has focused on various mechanisms for subtyping, but it's an
> entirely optional language feature. That's easy to forget when
> it's all anyone's talking about, but it is possible to just leave it
> out.
> It's also possible to leave a static type system out entirely.
>

You've lost me here. As Bob pointed out a few days ago, all types can be considered subtypes of the universal supertype. Doesn't that mean that all typing is, in reality, subtyping?

If so, how can you implement typing without implicitly implementing subtyping? Received on Sat May 05 2007 - 21:40:01 CEST